Silent Spring: Chapter 2 Summary & Analysis

The history of life on earth could be thought of as a record of living things interacting with their surroundings; for most of history, this has mostly meant that life is molded over time by the environment it inhabits. But very recently humans have become capable of altering the environment in significant ways.

Those alterations have been of an increasingly dangerous nature, and mostly involve widespread contaminations of the natural world that spur “a chain of poisoning and death” as poison is passed between living organisms. It passes through underground streams, and can be changed mysteriously by exposure to sunlight and air, so that its ultimate effects on those who drink from “once-pure wells” remain unknown.

One of the scariest aspects of this pollution is the speed with which it has taken hold. Although there are naturally occurring dangers from small amounts of radiation or chemical exposure, life has created a careful and resilient balance over the course of millennia in defense against them. The “heedless pace of man” in developing new poisons means that natural selection is not given the chance to develop these defenses. Many of the changes Carson describes have taken place over just the previous twenty-five years – which is a mere moment in geological time.

This “heedless pace” is truly astounding: 500 new synthetic chemicals are introduced in the U.S. alone each year. This includes those used in “man’s war against nature,” the insecticides designed to combat the perceived pests. Carson refers to these pesticides with her own term, “biocides,” or ‘life-killers,’ making the case that the destruction they cause is by no means limited to the insect world. She argues that this combat against nature creates a useless spiral of violence, destroying many species that were not the initial target of pesticide spraying and spreading chemicals that accumulate dangerously in organic tissues.

We are told by their supporters that these pesticides are necessary for farm production, but in fact there is a problem of food overproduction: each year the U.S. pays one billion dollars to subsidize the surplus-food storage program. This disconnect between reality and the language used by politicians or people in the industry is typical of the logic of urgency that many lawmakers use to justify insecticide use whenever there is a pest problem that they view as a ‘crisis.’

There may be an insect problem, but our notion of it is out of proportion with reality. Insects do in fact trouble humans if they carry disease in crowded areas or interfere with the food supply, but chemical methods of control have often backfired, causing wide harm and failing to eradicate the pests in question.

Moreover, the agricultural problem is in fact a product of modern, intensified methods of production – agriculture that is “engineered” instead of operating according to natural principles - that leave crops vulnerable to attack. One species of pest can flourish explosively when farmers plant a field composed exclusively of a single crop (as opposed to the time honored tradition of planting a field with multiple crops), and that single crop is then vulnerable to any attack or disease because of its lack of diversity.

Non-native insect species introduced to new regions by accident pose another issue in insect control. Most often, these insects hitchhiked to the new area on imported plant species. When they arrive, they enter an ecosystem without the predators or parasites that normally keep them in check, and their populations can balloon rapidly. Quarantine and pesticides campaigns against such pests are expensive and ineffective. Invasive species are better dealt with by other means.

Paul Shepard, an American environmentalist thinker, writes of life “with only its head out of the water,” barely clutching on to survival conditions. Although no one would seem to desire this sort of life, it is pressed upon us by the “ruthless power” of regulators in state and federal agencies who are enamored by pesticides. It is almost unbelievable that they should have the right to pollute on behalf of the whole population, which has no say in the matter.

In addition to the problem of regulation of pesticides, there is a lack of research into the negative consequences of these materials. Industry officials dominate discussion of the topic, silencing protests that urge caution and issuing false assurances of safety. The public must actively demand to know the facts about pesticide use before continuing down its current path of action.