I found this article from August, 2002, by Steven Brockerman, in Capitalism Magazine: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1796
In the article, Brockerman attempts to explain why Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring caused a ban on DDT that, instead of protecting us, actually is causing us danger by allowing mosquitoes carrying malaria to go unharmed and spread the disease. Brockerman argues that Carson's claims about studies like DeWitt's on thinned eggs of birds were taken the wrong way; Carson claimed the study showed exposure to DDT resulted in thinned eggs, and Brockerman argues DeWitt's study showed birds which were fed DDT produced 50% more eggs. Brockerman makes the point (like many others) that Carson's proof in Silent Spring is not all accurate and can sometimes be disproved. He also goes on to talk about her assertion that if DDT continued to be used, humans would contract cancers at an increasing rate. Brockerman notes a study of DDT-fed mice which developed a higher incidence of leukemia and tumors, but says this is not relevant because studies of humans living in areas where DDT was known to be did not develop the same incidence. He also concludes by claiming "One would have to conclude, given the facts, that environmentalists are either insane or intent upon eradicating every human being from the face of the planet." Brockerman seems to have missed the point of the environmentalist movement that Carson was part of: that we must learn to respect and care about species in nature and the environment itself, not merely about what resources we can get from it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"...we must learn to respect and care about species in nature and the environment itself..."
ReplyDeleteWhy?
There are two lines of thought you can take to answer that:
1. All species are equal. See Deep Ecology, the radical idea that all life has the right to exist, that no one species is more important than another (Church of Deep Ecology): http://www.judibari.org/revolutionary-ecology.html & http://www.churchofdeepecology.org/.
2. Because it is necessary for Man's survival, Man's life being the moral standard.
I opt for the second, bearing this in mind: "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed.".
Those who do not follow a different ethics, one 2,000 years old: the Judeo-Christian morality of self-sacrifice. Leaving them to worship either a deity (God) or Nature, e.g., Gaea (Gaia).
Folks can follow whatever morality they choose, of course. But let's be clear on the choice: rational selfishness or self-destruction.