Silent Spring

Dnf, this was the book that sparked a lot of discussion about pesticides and their extended effects on the environment.

I was curious about it so I checked it out.

It is very fear monger-y with a lot of half baked anecdotes. It is an important piece but we are all still alive like 60 years later and science has progressed far enough for there to be better sources on pesticides

This author on the verge of death decided to leave the most impactful legacy she could. She went against the chemical industry when only it got the funding and ecology was barely a thing. With her efforts a lot of concepts could flourish and gain more support. She is now my role model and I can't wait to read her literary works. Why haven't I heard of her in school?

This book is about how we as a species can't sit back and observe before acting. The methods with which we controlled insect populations were worse than now, very dangerous chemicals were just sprayed over everything in large doses with aeroplanes. We have not observed what removing certain insects meant and how it affected the ecology. We ended up with removing insects that helped to control certain pests or used chemicals which remove anything but the target insect. These chemicals got into the water which means they go into everything, the soil, the rain, the plants, the animals. The further the animal food chain you go the more these animals get contaminated chemicals. These caused seizures, cancers, killed pets and put human babies in comas. They were considered harmless insecticides despite being literal poison to everything. A lot of this has come from the world wars and because we have developed poisons during them.

We have gone so far wanting to poison everything that we developed solutions which made the blood of pets toxic to insects. Sounds safe and reasonable! These poisons were comparable to radiation and reduced fertility (this is a hidden benefit because we do not need more environment wreckers in the world).

The author goes into specific examples of which animals were infected like salmon, robins, countless birds, all sorts of animals which weren't the target to begin with, the specific damages, the possible alternatives which used science and facts. I have no doubt we have developed way more sophisticated technologies since this book was released, but we still have a lot of trouble relocating the funding towards the environment for some reason. Oh, it must be money, but only for a specific part of the population because what horrors would happen if they lost the power.

Reading this book reminded me of how odd people are and maybe that it's better to stay away from most of them. I want to be like Rachel and go against whatever I am supposed to do because I know it's not working. She clearly was not liked, hated, or despised for her hard work, but the alternative seems to go along humanity's “I give up” plan. Life's about choosing for who you want to suffer, but suffer we all do.

I don't think there's an appropriate way to rate this. I will say though it made me immensely depressed - which is kind of the intent so good job on that I guess

The majority of this book seemed like a compilation of investigation journalism pieces with very few technical details which isn't something that I like very much but the last three chapters were quite satisfactory in that sense. If coupled with the fact that this book had achieved such a huge achievement in the past, this book is still current in terms of the relevancy of its factual information.
4 stars/5

A classic of American environmentalism. Carson writes beautifully, using everything from apt metaphors to mythological references to convey the destructiveness of the pesticides that were commonly used in her time. Additionally, she makes arguments from both a conservationist and an economic angle, which should appeal to people across the political spectrum. Silent Spring pays pronounced attention to the insect world and will remain a book of significant interest to entomology enthusiasts.

Carson goes into great scientific detail about the implications of indiscriminate pesticide use. Some of the information is timeless, such as the excellent explanation in the chapter “Elixirs of Death” of how methane is modified to produce other chemical compounds, or the overarching theme of respect for ecology. Some very specific data regarding certain animal populations in 1962, for instance, may not be as relevant to the modern reader. The book is a product of its time, and some of the language has not aged well, particularly regarding people with disabilities.

An indisputably great work, but perhaps not a conventionally “fun” one, although I don't think it has to be. While it's interesting to read about the issues of Carson's time, reading Silent Spring made me more interested in reading about contemporary environmental issues.

A lot of people are negative about this book, because they fear it's scaremongering lefty environmentalism. I suppose it can be taken that way, but to me Rachel Carson presents the facts in rather neutral manner. She doesn't say even once that pesticides and insecticides has to be forbidden and never used, but repeats that one needs to think what one does, about the consequences, that toxins are toxic (duh!), one needs to consider the options, one needs to look at how things are dealt with elsewhere and what are the results - like in beekeeping, varroa mites are a real problem, but beekeepers have noticed that when the bees are allowed to keep some of their honey, they are more resistent to the mites. Something that easy - we don't even need to deny all honey, just not be greedy and take all of it.

I mean, I love The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See - one should use the method with everything.

If Rachel is wrong, and we stop poisoning insects, and the elms die and we lose half the crops to insects and fungus etc. Economical difficulties. So no wonder economics don't like this book.
If Rachel is wrong, and we don't stop poisoning insects, economical profits, less insects
If Rachel is right, and we don't stop poisoning insects, we kill all life on this planet.
If Rachel is right, and we stop poisoning insects, we might not get as big economical profits, but we save the whole planet.
To me the choice is easy. I don't need to know what is true, I just need to know the consequences. I seriously don't give crap about “economical difficulties”, so if Rachel was wrong, the consequences aren't bad.

Also, we know she isn't wrong.

Sincerely, I don't get the upset. She doesn't say anything but totally logical, sane, self evident facts. Like “toxins are toxic”. Duh. I really don't get it.