In 1962 Rachel Carson published a revolutionary piece of
work, Silent Spring. This book, in
all its realness and horror, shocked the world and spawned future environmental
movements. Despite the unexpected impact that it had on pesticide use around
the world, there are still modern-day issues of surprising similarity to those
discussed and reprimanded in her book. Mark Winston presents an example of this
in his article titled “Our Bees, Ourselves.” Both Carson and Winston speak of
the significance of bee health in the balance of our ecosystem as well as the
detrimental impact that pesticides have on this balance. Despite fifty years of
improved science, technology, and awareness, human ignorance and a resistance
to change have delayed the eradication of chemical-use on Earth.
To start off, Carson’s Silent Spring speaks of pesticide impact on all walks of life –
including the startling effect on animals, plants, soil, water, and humans –
whether it be intentional or not. Let us turn our attention to that which the
chemical companies insist we must destroy: the insects themselves and the
plants which are essential for their survival. During Carson’s time, propaganda
had a way of fabricating the harm of insects such as the fire ant, whose “sting
was said to make it a serious menace to human health.”[1] Although their sting
causes pain and annoyance, the fire ant can hardly be considered a serious
health risk. On the other hand, the sting of bees and wasps killed 33 people in
1959 alone and yet there was no indication by chemical companies that these
insects should be eradicated.[2] My point, however, is not
to say that bees should have been targeted in place of fire ants. The case of
the fire ant only proves that chemical companies were not trying to protect
human health, but rather trying to make money. If they thought they could have increased
profits by targeting bees then surely that’s what would have been done. Fire
ants’ seemingly insignificant lives simply made for an easy target, while even
at this time the importance of bees and pollination was at least partly respected.
Carson attempts to guide the reader towards a more full understanding of this
concept. To do so, she discusses how chemicals are used to kill roadside plants
and pesky weeds – flora which commonly lacks appreciation. She claims that
“such plants are ‘weeds’ only to those who make a business of selling and
applying chemicals”[3]
which, in her time, was the general public. But what the general public didn’t
realize was that:
“Such vegetation is also the
habitat of wild bees and other pollinating insects… Some agricultural crops and
many wild plants are partly or wholly dependent on the services of the native
pollinating insects… [and] without insect pollination, most of the soil-holding
and soil-enriching plants of uncultivated areas would die out, with
far-reaching consequences to the ecology of the whole region.”[4]
In short, insects such as
bees and plants such as weeds, although small and quite seemingly pesky, are
not to be disregarded. Nature has found a balance on this planet and each
living organism is an essential piece to this balance. To destroy weeds would
be to destroy bees, and to destroy bees would be to destroy ourselves.
Since the publication of Silent Spring, there have been numerous attempts to slow down the
production and use of the harmful chemicals that threaten the health of Earth’s
ecosystem. Carson’s impact on the environmental perspective was immense, but
was it enough to, in a sense, save mankind? Unfortunately, the abundance of
modern research is hardly enough to cause concern let alone stop the sale and
use of chemicals. While the farmers are dying of cancer, the bees are suffering
as well. According to Winston, the bees’ health and prosperity (or lack
thereof) is a sure indication of the fate of the human race. He states that
“about one-third of hives collapse each year”[5] and that this should be
considered a catastrophe to all, especially considering how “the honeybee is a
remarkably resilient species.”[6] Humans have dwelled on
this planet a mere fraction of time that honeybees have. Our chemicals and our
boundless obsession with controlling nature is killing a species that has so
clearly earned their precious place in it. Humans are so keen on finding a quick
fix for our problems that we are blind to the long and longer-term consequences
(long-term being the riddance of our hives and longer-term being that of humans).
We are also blind to any potentially beneficial and sustainable courses of
action. Winston believes that “bees provide some clues as to how we may build a
more collaborative relationship with the services that ecosystems provide.”[7] For example, there are
many kinds of bees that could be of service for agricultural purposes, yet they
are all threatened by pesticides, weed killers, and the ruin of their nesting
sites. A study was conducted at
Winston’s university that discovered how uncultivated land and therefore the
pollination of unthreatened wild bees actually increased crop yields.[8] In short, it can be stated
that “we manage too much.”[9] Humans have so arrogantly
grown to assume that our interference with nature will make things better –
that somehow, despite our obvious insignificance from the perspective of Time,
our actions can be considered improvements. If we do not come to terms with our
triviality, our ignorance in turn will be the root of our demise and nature
will prevail as it always has.
The works of Carson and Winston clearly have very similar
motives. They see the planet’s ecosystem as one living being – every part
essential and every system so tightly connected that the ripple effect of any
small interference could be catastrophic. Take the human body for example. A
person could lose an arm or a leg and survive, but remove the immune system of
microscopic size and they wouldn’t last a day. The balance of nature is not
totally, as people often see it, about preserving a forest here while building
a city there. It is also about the minute details that we have grown so used to
ignoring. Chemicals in our ecosystem, if we aren’t careful, become the
seemingly minute infection that will kill first the immune system and then the
body of life on Earth. And as both Carson and Winston discuss, mixings of these
chemicals will bring a much quicker demise. On the topic of organic phosphates,
Carson states that “1/100 of the lethal dose of each compound may be fatal when
the two are combined.”[10] In this case the toxicity
of the chemicals is ‘potentiated,’ which means that “one compound destroys the
liver enzyme responsible for detoxifying the other.”[11] A harmless exposure to
one chemical is still capable of killing so long as there is a harmless
exposure to another chemical to accompany it. Taking the food chain into
account, once the fish have eaten the plankton and absorbed the river water
which runs alongside suburbia, how many chemicals have compounded in the little
piece of seafood sitting on your plate? Potentiation can happen in all life. Winston
relates this concept to the collapse of the honeybees, since “there is no one
cause, but rather a thousand little cuts” and it is the “synergy” and the “compounding
impact” of all our controlling efforts that destroys these insects.[12] Although we may not
realize it, Winston mentions that humans are all too familiar with the warnings
of potentiation. Every commercial and every label for pharmaceutical drugs warn
of mixing them together. Why? Because mixing the chemicals they contain can be
very harmful or even fatal. What Carson and Winston are trying to demonstrate
is that nature cannot warn us before we kill it with our chemicals. There are
no labels that say “This chemical released on this farm will contaminate the
surrounding plants, animals, soil, and waterways, and in turn be mixed and
amplified by chemicals released elsewhere.” By the time the destruction becomes
obvious, it is too late and every part of the ecosystem has been infected or
even destroyed completely.
In conclusion, both Carson and Winston see significance
in the parts of our ecosystem that are so often and so carelessly overlooked.
The passion and irritation is evident in their words as they desperately try to
convince the public of the consequences of their destructive behavior. They
maintain more than passion, though, since arguing against the use of chemicals
is to argue against generations of people from all walks of life that have not
experienced any harm. Passion is simply not enough. Carson and Winston’s writing
can be taken seriously because of the obvious and extensive education they went
through in order to argue their point effectively. But isn’t it a little
terrifying that despite a 50-year gap, improved technology, and numerous
environmental movements, Winston is essentially reiterating Carson’s point?
After all, how many studies like Winston’s must be done to prove that the
micromanagement of nature is ineffective in agriculture? How many farmers have
to die of cancer each year to prove that these chemicals harm more than they’re
intended to? How many weeds will we kill and bee hives will we lose before we
have rid the planet of pollinating insects? Only time will tell. In the
meantime, Carson and Winston’s claims must be broadcasted in order to mitigate
the ineffective and detrimental use of chemicals in everyday life.
[1]
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring (New
York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962), 163.
[2]
Ibid, 164.
[3] Ibid,
71.
[4] Carson,
Rachel. Silent Spring (New York:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962), 73.
[5]
Winston, Mark, “Our Bees, Ourselves,” The
New York Times, 14 July 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/opinion/bees-and-colony-collapse.html?ref=topics&_r=0
[6]
Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
Ibid.
[10] Carson,
Rachel. Silent Spring (New York:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962), 31.
[11]
Ibid.
[12] Winston,
Mark, “Our Bees, Ourselves,” The New York
Times, 14 July 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/opinion/bees-and-colony-collapse.html?ref=topics&_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment