Carson fashions a well constructed argument throughout her book starting with the fable of no birds singing and has shown the reader how this could come about chapter by chapter. She has explained what the chemicals in pesticides are and how they work. What happens when the atmosphere, ground water, soil, and plant life is contaminated by the pesticides. Next she has us looking at how the insects play a key role in the food webs within different ecosystems and how this will impact the ability of birds to survive. Here too we see the significance of how the poison is magnified through each trophic level. The pesticides may not kill the birds directly but it does taint their food sources. The loss of a food source will result in the birds seeking out new areas to forage and nest. Lastly, there is the threat to the reproductive ability of the birds themselves.
I found her description of the battle to save the elm trees from Dutch Elm disease disturbing and enlightening. It seemed that throwing more and more pesticides on the trees in an attempt to rid them of the beetles that spread the disease simply did not work. Then she wrote of how the state of New York went about preserving their elms but removing the diseased wood and destroying any firewood that might be contaminated. In trying to save the trees we were destroying the birds.
We are faced with a similar problem today in the form of the Asian Longhorn Beetle. There is an active crusade to limit this insect's damage by removing diseased trees and a campaign to educate the public not to move firewood from state to state. In and around the city of Worcester when the beetles were first detected they sought to do battle - not with chemicals but with chain saws. (Read a quick story about this) Again there is evidence that we are starting to learn how to deal with insect threats without resorting to adding pesticides into the mix.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
In this chapter, Rachel Carson shows another step in the line of attack of insecticides. She’s described their affect on the soil, the plant life, other forms of life. Here, she describes insecticides’ destruction of wild birds. Here as well as above, Carson uses two dominant means of persuasion: logical and ethical. She describes the scientific methods used to determine the link between insecticide spraying and bird deaths. She also reminds the reader over and over of the value of wild birds in the world as members of ecology we all live in.
Carson states that "to the public the choice may easily appear to be one of stark black-or-white simplicity: shall we have bird or shall we have elms?" (114) but it isn't that simple. An ideal solution would be saving both; a choice shouldn't have to be made. The trees and birds both play an extremely important role in the ecosystem and humans need to realize that before destroying everything in order to get rid of one thing.
“To millions of Americans, the season’s first robin means that the grip of winter is broken. Its coming is an event reported in newspapers and told eagerly at the breakfast table (105).” Birds tell us a lot about our environment and I think we use them as a means of defining what’s normal in these environments. It’s clear that the robin signifies the coming of Spring, while geese tend to be associated with flying south before Winter. The Eagle is our nation’s emblem. We also know that the seagull is an icon of the beach. In chapter 7, I focused on Carson’s discussion of the birds and the fear of a world without them. Her points reminded me of a video I saw about the effects of trash on seagulls. The link is attached below. It is a little graphic, but a very good eye opener. I didn’t realize how much these animals get into, and it makes me wonder how other animals are severely affected like these birds.
Warning: images of sick, dying, and dead seagulls from trash left on the beach.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SO89Bj2Fvc
On page 110, Carson explains how certain plants have become victims of harmful sprays. This is easily harmful to birds because they stay in the trees which causes them to be exposed to chemicals. This needs to be fixed because if any part of the ecosystem is suddenly gone or smaller, it changes everything including other ecosystems. We need to think about every consequence before acting. Every part of the ecosystem is important and plays a role.
In response to Brooke, I agree that even a slight change in the ecosystem can have a negative effect on its surroundings. She also makes a very good point that people need to think about every consequence before acting. The only way we can make a change is simply by informing people of the harm pesticides have on the environment, and what we can do to make a change.
I think that our improvements- no matter how small- on leaving pesticides behind are great improvements none the less! I feel bad that we have manipulated our environment in such a way that the insects are over populating, but even if it was our fault from the get go, chemicals are not the solution. I just hope that we are learning of our mistakes with the bird incident and don't accidentally destroy a population by ridding the trees of the Asian Longhorn Beetles. On page 112, Carson dicusses how the feeding habits of the birds make them especially vulnerable. Hopefully the Asian Longhorn Beetles are not too important of a link in some animals food web.
"The facts suggest that something is at work...evidence that insecticides are responsible" (118). Birds in America have been migrating more and more each year, because of the amounts of them dying from spraying plants with DDT. This effects the leaves of elm trees, which is what worms eat, which is what birds eat. This domino effect is what is making birds need to find a different food source.
I agree with Jackie I think every minute change in keeping pesticides out if the environment is a step in the right direction. Birds have suffered so much from toxic chemical released in the environment that it needs to be stopped and I don't think people are aware a declining bird population indirectly affects us. The ecosystem gets thrown off, and eventually the mess spirals down to our level.
In response to Sarah Pugh I really liked your video it just took everything one step farther and actually seeing the birds in so much misery was powerful and eye opening.
In response to Sarah Pugh I really liked your video it just took everything one step farther and actually seeing the birds in so much misery was powerful and eye opening.
"During 1954... their familiar territories." (106)
In this quote Carson is showing that the same tactic they used on the beetles, was already disproven and didn't work because it killed off the robins. It seems so odd and almost terrorizing in a way that in order to kill off one thing, we're killing of other organisms in the process, or in which case trees as well which are a human's source of healthy oxygen. It just seems that the whole process of pesticides is doing way more bad than good. It has more cons than pros, it may help something temporarily but it always ends up screwing the environment in the long run.
Carson foreshadowed in the beginning of the novel the possibility of birds going silent. Throughout each chapter, she quietly touches base on the idea. However in this chapter, she provides evidence of how this can actually become possible. I think it's important for everyone to understand that even though birds may not be directly killed from insecticides, the chain of events caused by insecticides will ultimately end up killing them. When we kill of their food supply, they either have to find something else to eat or they end up dying. Wild birds have such a significant role in our lives whether we realize it or not
"A year after...and a wren" (104).
This passage shows how the birds were affected by the chemicals that were sprayed down to eliminate the destruction of the fire ants. We should have learned from this that using chemicals was destroying the bird population. The birds and trees are both parts of an ecosystem that help it work the way it should. I believe that after that first spraying and the results that followed, we should have come up with a way to deal with the fire ants without destroying the tree and bird populations.
I completely agree with Meaghan Moynihan's response. Will there ever be a solution that is beneficial for everyone and everything? We all know that most of the time you can't please everybody - so maybe we must always have to make a choice, even if it doesn't seem fair. Here we saw, as Mrs. Rotelli stated, that in trying to save the trees we were destroying the birds. Although I agree that a choice shouldn't have to be made, rarely are there not consequences for our actions. So instead of acting before considering all the outcomes, we need to recognize the value in all things before we're forced to realize it later; that way we can prevent being faced with such a decision.
"In fact, its agricultural extension service does not recommend spraying as a community method of control."
In this chapter, the continuous theme of chemical spraying hurting more than the targeted insect or disease works it's way into the bird species. We rely to much on chemical uses to try to improve a natural problem. It doesn't just hurt the population of the now, or the environment of the now, but it effects the reproduction rate which there in affects the coming generation. New York relied on natural ways to get rid of the natural disease. Simply remove it, sanitize and replant. Such a simple response to a natural problem. The true problem we have is our reliance and belief that chemicals can always solve the problem and who has the power to decided to infect our environment with these chemicals.
"A year after the federal... months later a blue jay appeared and a wren." (104)
In this quote, it discusses how in Alabama there was a huge program against the spraying of the chemicals and she claimed there were many many birds always around, and in July there were more birds than they had ever had yet when August came around, they all disappeared. I thing this passage id really interesting because it goes to show the ripple effect of the climate, atmosphere and food. The climate is just like the food, if one thing or condition is switched up, everything else gets affected and you see the beginning of a downfall.
In this chapter Carson talks about the birds diets and many other animals diets. Yes the insects are a problem but it is a bad idea to spray chemicals to kill them. Why? Because the chemicals don't just kill the unwanted insects, they affect everything else around them such as getting soaked into soil and bugs. Then when a bird is hungry and wants to eat they are going to dive down for some grubs or worms. If those worms are in the area of where the chemicals were sprayed they could possibly be poisoned. Then when the birds eat the worms they can get sick and potentially die. Another reason why spraying insects to kill them is a bad idea is because some insects with adapt to the chemicals and rebuild there society. Then there is a bunch of bugs that can deal with the chemical and not die when it is sprayed on them as we talked in class.
"Silent Spring" is a spring without the singing of birds. The title itself foreshadows what could become of the world. It is a horrible fact that in the attempt to fix one problem, we create more. The main component is bring these unnatural chemicals into this natural world. They do not belong and it shows everywhere. If we were meant to use them in nature, then everything would be okay, but they are unnatural and cause more harm than they do good. I feel many people don't really notice birds until they are gone and we are left with a silent spring.
Post a Comment