As George Santayana, a prominent philosopher and naturalist in the 1900s, once said, “The earth has music for those who listen.” However, in a world that often exploits nature in the name of progress and profit, the music is lost upon the ears of the increasingly unappreciative public. This trend was especially true with the introduction in the 1940s of the pesticide DDT, a chemical that killed massive populations of birds and wildlife and proved to be harmful to humans as well. Appalled by the rapid deterioration of nature, Rachel Caron, a marine biologist and conservationist, wrote the book Silent Spring, urging for a ban on DDT. The title of her book is an ominous evocation of a silent, lifeless future stripped of the beautiful music
…show more content…
In order to establish a sense of intimacy and relatability with the birds targeted by the pesticide, Carson compels the American public to regard the birds not as mere nuisances but as living beings that share with humans the ability to think and desire—to choose a “favored roosting site” near a cornfield to raise their young. The vulnerability of the newborn birds in the roosting sites appeals to an intrinsic, maternal desire to protect this symbol of purity and innocence from an unjustified death. Unfortunately, the pesticide has already reduced the once lively and intelligent birds and their children to “pitiful heaps of many-hued feathers,” a tragic loss of life and innocence. Combined with the powerful image of death, the poetic description of the feathers reminds not only of the beauty of nature and life, something humans often overlook or take for granted, but also its fragility and its need to be protected, not poisoned. To substantiate that the pesticide is as deadly towards the birds as she claims, Carson specifies the disturbing death count from one pesticide application: “65,000 red-winged blackbirds and starlings.” By articulating the precise details of the deaths, she transforms the magnitude of …show more content…
For instance, workers who came into contact with the pesticide “collapsed and went into shock, and escaped death only through skilled medical attention.” The chain of climactic verbs dramatizes the incident and emphasizes the menace of the pesticide to human health. In doing so, Carson exploits mankind’s innate fear of death and injury as a potent deterrent against pesticide use. She summarizes these destructive consequences of the pesticide on both nature and human health as an “ever-widening wave of death that spreads out, like ripples when a pebble is dropped into a still pond.” Even without the fear of nuclear devastation during the Cold War, the image evoked by the vivid comparison is far too reminiscent a nuclear blast’s deadly waves of radiation and destruction that are not only widespread but also uncontrollable. More ominously, the decision to impose this danger is that of an “authoritarian,” a tyrannical regime that not only betrays the American people by abusing the power they “entrusted” in it but also threatens all highly valued American ideals and beliefs. Such an exaggeration of the danger it presents magnifies the scope of the pesticide issue from a minor, local problem to a national crisis, inspiring an urgent need to stop the
In order to establish a sense of intimacy and relatability with the birds targeted by the pesticide, Carson compels the American public to regard the birds not as mere nuisances but as living beings that share with humans the ability to think and desire—to choose a “favored roosting site” near a cornfield to raise their young. The vulnerability of the newborn birds in the roosting sites appeals to an intrinsic, maternal desire to protect this symbol of purity and innocence from an unjustified death. Unfortunately, the pesticide has already reduced the once lively and intelligent birds and their children to “pitiful heaps of many-hued feathers,” a tragic loss of life and innocence. Combined with the powerful image of death, the poetic description of the feathers reminds not only of the beauty of nature and life, something humans often overlook or take for granted, but also its fragility and its need to be protected, not poisoned. To substantiate that the pesticide is as deadly towards the birds as she claims, Carson specifies the disturbing death count from one pesticide application: “65,000 red-winged blackbirds and starlings.” By articulating the precise details of the deaths, she transforms the magnitude of …show more content…
For instance, workers who came into contact with the pesticide “collapsed and went into shock, and escaped death only through skilled medical attention.” The chain of climactic verbs dramatizes the incident and emphasizes the menace of the pesticide to human health. In doing so, Carson exploits mankind’s innate fear of death and injury as a potent deterrent against pesticide use. She summarizes these destructive consequences of the pesticide on both nature and human health as an “ever-widening wave of death that spreads out, like ripples when a pebble is dropped into a still pond.” Even without the fear of nuclear devastation during the Cold War, the image evoked by the vivid comparison is far too reminiscent a nuclear blast’s deadly waves of radiation and destruction that are not only widespread but also uncontrollable. More ominously, the decision to impose this danger is that of an “authoritarian,” a tyrannical regime that not only betrays the American people by abusing the power they “entrusted” in it but also threatens all highly valued American ideals and beliefs. Such an exaggeration of the danger it presents magnifies the scope of the pesticide issue from a minor, local problem to a national crisis, inspiring an urgent need to stop the