Friday, November 15, 2013
Silent Spring Chapter 6 - Earth's Green Mantle
Carson switches her focus from pesticides to the herbicides used to control unwanted plant life or "weeds." She writes about how the removal of one particular species of plant can impact other plant and animal life in the ecosystem. Reflect back to our discussion of food webs. She introduces us to the concept of beneficial plants and insects which can help to discourage pesky, unwanted plants and insects. Many of these practices are used today by organic gardeners/farmers. Now it's your turn to share what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I didn’t realize that out of 70 plants that may be in a specific environment, 65 are very important to the animals surviving there; that is 92%. So when people decide to remove even little weeds that are believed to help other plants grow, they are impacting the stability of the environment. Should it really be considered properly treated then? What is considered properly treated? I think that’s an issue this society is trying to solve currently. As more people become informed, they are changing their ways and going organic or natural. This is a huge step that is sadly very expensive which continues to feed the cheaper, less-environmentally friendly products. Carson ends on a very good note in this chapter when she talks about introducing more of a certain native species to even out or fix minor problems. This is the direction I believe we should go.
"Although modern man...to destruction forthwith" (63). This passage, although short, really hit home for me. It is so undeniably true that most people go along with their day to day life never recognizing that they would not exist without the plants that "harness the sun's energy and manufacture the basic foodstuffs he depends on for life." I also agree with Carson when she states that our attitude towards plants is narrow. If there is a plant that we find to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, having indifference with it, we simply remove or get rid of it. This is concerning because we don't think about the effects removing certain plants has on our environment and ecosystem as a whole.
I like the natural methods that Carson elaborates on in chapter 6, they're less environmentally damaging, if at all, and they seem very effective. Today more than ever, humans are disrupting the environment and I think any natural method for agriculture or controlling unwanted plants and insects is a step in the right direction.
i completely agree that the herbicides used to control "weeds" can easily affect an ecosystem. every plant has a place in an ecosystem and just by killing it can mess it up. It reminds me of that packet we read about putting shrimp into an ecosystem really changed its course. this follows the same path. not to mention the chemicals used can damage it also.
What Carson describes in this chapter I find to be much more relatable and familiar than the aspects expressed in earlier parts of the novel. People often seem more inclined to be concerned with the current problems they face and push the consequences off to be dealt with in the future. Here is where the “quick fixes” and easier solutions come into play. Many of the beneficial practices used by organic gardeners and farmers today are not being implemented by others primarily due to cost. This leaves the less-environmentally friendly products being used on a regular basis, and the outcome detrimental. But we should know by now that these methods never work in the long run, and that we need to invest in what is important for everyone and everything around us. Although I believe that we should be wary at first of anything claiming to be “natural,” once proven effective and helpful, natural methods are definitely the way to go. After all, we want to preserve and replenish the natural world.
"The antelope..... belong to it." (67)
The web of plants is similar to any process, there's certain aspects that can't be removed or else it will create a chain reaction of killing off plants, and the herbivores that feed off them. It's just a way of life. The plant at question may not be beneficial to one group or some aspect of our health, but it may be a necessity to another organism. Last year in my AP Lang class we read a story about a man who was time traveling, and while he was walking down a path through the ages of the dinosaurs he stepped on a butterfly. (i.e. basically a literal example of the butterfly effect). Thinking it was nothing, when he came back to the present, so much had changed about the world, the language, certain characteristics of the world were completely skewed. Of course, this is an extreme example, but you disturb one part of a chain, and you disturb the following parts of the chain. In this case, the plant web.
I agree with Sarah Pugh, I think she raises a great point when she says that as more people become informed, they are changing their habits and starting to use natural or organic lawn care products. I think that a large portion of our problems come from peoples unawareness, I don't believe the majority of the population intentionally tries to harm our ecosystem. Once people become aware, only then do they change their ways.
"If for any reason we find its presence undesirable or merely a matter of indifference, we may condemn it to destruction forthwith" (pg 63).
As Carson blatantly put it, as humans we can't deny it. The second we find a problem with something, whether it be earth-shattering or simply an annoyance, we seek to get rid of it. What we don't realize, is we're upsetting the balance of nature and taking away from the life cycle of many living organisms.
“Our attitude toward plants is a singularly narrow one. If we see any immediate utility in a plant we foster it. If for any reason we find its presence undesirable or merely a matter of indifference, we may condemn it to destruction forthwith.” (63)
Carson wants to describe the general mindset people in our society have on plants. We seem to be easily influenced in what we see as pleasing or attractive. We damage plants that “happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time” (64). It is important to recognize that by harming plants that may not be where we want them, such as weeds, we are initiating a slight alteration in the ‘web of life’. If we do not act quickly, these small changes in our own life will cause an extreme shift in the ecosystem.
"Although modern man seldom remembers the fact, he could not exist without the plants that harness the sun's energy and manufacture the basic foodstuffs he depends upon for life...many others are destroyed merely because they happen to be associates of the unwanted plants,"(63-64).
Carson states how if humans see something that they find abnormal or they simply don't like, they go ahead and destroy it. The simple fact that without plants, humans would not be able to survive doesn't seem to be taken very seriously. Some pesky or unwanted insects like bees for example, help us in the bigger picture. If we were to remove bees from the ecosystem, everything would be a disaster. You can't just take something out of the ecosystem only because something is "annoying" because by doing so, the whole world would be effected.
Response to Meaghan Moynihan:
I agree. As humans, we like to think we are at the top of the food chain. In some religions, it is believed that everything around is for man’s disposal and benefit. But whether it’s a religious view or not, it is clear that the things we do to ecosystems are going to have an effect in some shape or form. Nature still has its own plans and we cannot control it, we can only assist it negatively or learn and make it positive. Nature won’t wait for us to find time about our busy, contemporary lives so we can sit down and make changes.
I agree with what Carson wrote about herbicides and using them instead of pesticides. They will disrupt the ecosystem less because they are not as destructive to the environment and ecosystem. The chemicals that some farmers use pollute the soil and plants that are wanted instead of only the unwanted plants. The use of plants and insects to remove unwanted plants is a much greener way to weed a garden and it will help with the health of the soil and remaining plants that people and animals are consuming.
"The antelope, too, have adjusted their lives to the sage."(65)
This passage shows how parts of the ecosystem like the animals are adapting their lives and their habits to the resources they have around them. The sage is also a producer because while all the plants are bare and all the leaves are gone, The sage steps in and plays a key role for the animals and provides them throughout the winter season. The sage is grown and built to survive even through the winter. this shows the cycle of plants and how when one dies out, the animals and other organisms have to adapt to different varying resources.
In response to Sydney Gillis:
As we continue to influence nature, many times animals are forced to adapt and conform to their new habitats in order to ensure their survival. It's interesting to see how we sometimes abuse the privileges given to us. Many above have mentioned that we jump at ways to get rid of things we don't find convenient, but this is unfair when plants and animals cannot exercise the same power. We have a direct impact on our surroundings, and what is ironic is that when we negatively affect the environment, not only do the animals have to suffer as they have to change to incorporate the new or newly limited resources they have around them, but we ultimately suffer as well. Yet, if we help our environment and use natural products, etc. we will benefit and the environment will prosper.
Can this lack of responsibility on our part really be blamed solely on lack of knowledge and awareness?
Humans have introduced nonnative plants to many parts of the world and this introduction can change many things within that ecosystem. Problems that have been created by man, are trying to be corrected by killing other plants, but in turn the killing of that plant and hurt another. The interrelationships are very delicate amongst ecosystems and when we interfere we should do so carefully, but the use of weed killers is not so. Natural methods should be used, keeping things natural in nature is the best way to keep things healthy.
In response to Jill, I agree that as soon as we find a problem with something we try everything in our power to get rid of it. Humans can't continue to do that our our world will suffer as a consequence. We can't upset the balance of nature or we too will be effected before we know it. This will happen unintentionally but once it happens, I think it might be too late to fix it.
In response to Jess:
I agree completely, the more we keep finding things to be an inconvenience, the faster we get rid of them. We don't even look into if it could possibly benefit us somehow, and in the process we disrupt the web of life which will eventually backfire at human kind
"Among the many advantages of selective spraying...harm to wildlife is therefore kept to a minimum" (75). Without plants on this planet, no animals or humans would be able to survive. Spraying plants that were intended for people to eat, is counter intuitive because we are going to ingest all those chemicals. Coating our food with chemicals is a bad idea because it's hard to get them all off before we eat them.
"Once it had been a joy to follow those roads through the evergreen forest...Now all was brown desolation." (70)
This quote right here relates to myself a little as well as the people in Maine and everywhere else in the world that man has disrupted nature. I live in the woods and they have just built a road right next to my house. This new road use to be a nice trail that my family and I used to walk up for fun. Now it is just a road, I can remember when I was little when we used to play up there and pretend we were survivalists. I understand why this makes people angry because it has happened in my life also, and its all for people to just make more money.
In response to Meghan's post. I enjoyed reading your entry because I feel the same way. People are selfish and think that if they don't want something they can just take it away. If people take everything away then there world will no longer function so smoothly or correctly. Someday someone is going to take something significant away and then realize they should nothave taken it away, I'm sure this has already happened.
"But as the herbicides rain down on forest and field, on marsh and rangeland, they are bringing marked changers and even permanent destruction of wildlife habitat" (74).
If humans do not want it, they will destroy it. That simply is our sad nature. Our lawns are not perfect, our gardens are not pure wanted-plants, our pavement has grass growing in it. Our simple answer? There is a chemical for it. I feel herbicides to treat these problems is the equivalent of killing one man with an atomic bomb. The damage we are doing to the surrounding ecosystem is permanent. Animals are losing their homes due to our need to kill off their unsightly food supply. Only so our lawns look more green than those of our neighbors. Is it really worth it? Carson sees herbicides in the same light as I: herbicides are not a method of killing unwanted herbal growths, but instead herbicides are a method of doing permanent damage to ecosystems.
In response to Cole,
I share a similar story in that my grandmother's house use to be surrounded by fields in which my cousins and I would run around in and play. Now, the small, ranch house is surrounded by remodeled McMansions. Just like how the path you used to play on was destroyed by mankind, so were the fields in which I grew up in, all to make money. So many habitats were destroyed, and equally as bad, memories were paved over in tar.
Post a Comment