2021年10月 / 马哥(Marlin)整理

07. Needless Havoc / 不必要的大破坏

(部分节选 - 可能不完整)

Mankind’s brutal legacy of destruction of other species, from the slaughter of the buffalo to the near extermination of the egret, is being repeated in pesticides. It would seem that nothing takes priority over the spray gun. One question is whether to believe the agencies in charge of insect control, who insist that no losses occur outside of the targeted pest, or wildlife biologists and witnesses who assert that destruction from spraying has been catastrophic. Surely, answers Carson, the scientists and locals on the ground are more trustworthy witnesses than chemical manufacturers and government regulators. These local parties have often expressed sadness or anger at the destruction of the wild places and animals they held dear.

As they begin to mourn the loss of the beautiful natural world they inhabit, concerned citizens need to unite in order to prevent another environmental disaster. Currently, not enough voices in power are questioning the dominance of synthetic chemicals as a control for pest populations, despite the evidence of their destructive power. Carson’s mission is to gather the evidence from locals and scientists and publish her findings in the form of a popular science book – this one – that can motivate change.

The case of the Japanese beetle in the Midwest provides a basis for Carson’s arguments against pesticide spraying. In Michigan, in 1959, 27,000 acres of land were dusted with the pesticide aldrin, even though little need was shown for such measures. Despite reasonable control of the invasive beetles in the Northeast without excessive spraying, Midwestern pest control agencies have taken a dramatic, pesticide-based approach in light of recent encroachments of the beetle on their states. The highly toxic aldrin was chosen as the least expensive poison, and citizens were told not to worry about any dangers.

By highlighting the fact that the Japanese beetle had been controlled effectively by non-chemical methods in the Northeast, Carson emphasizes that this destructive insecticide-focused method is not necessary, as some lawmakers claim. Unthinking reliance on the chemical option seems to be the only explanation for choosing one of the most toxic poisons to begin the program, simply because it is least expensive. Who is responsible for this choice?

Despite hundreds of concerned calls from citizens, spraying went ahead as planned. Pellets of the pesticide built up on rooftops, and signs of poisoning came shortly afterward, as cats, birds, and humans showed symptoms related to pesticide exposure. The government categorically denied any wrongdoing. Other Midwestern communities experienced similar effects, and entire bird populations were “virtually wiped out.”

Carson argues humanity's goal of conquering nature has left needless destruction of life in its wake. Even worse, she claims, is “a new kind of havoc—the direct killing of... practically every form of wildlife by chemical insecticides sprayed indiscriminately on the land.” Life killed incidentally is deemed unimportant in relation to the larger goal of ridding the earth of unwanted “pests.”

Carson presents two conflicting views: (1) conservationists who claim loss of life is severe and (2) control agencies that claim the losses are minimal or inconsequential. She poses the question of who should be believed. She argues the “credibility of the witness” is most important and judgment should be based on reports of unbiased observers.

Carson also asserts the enjoyment of nature is a legitimate right. For this reason even transitory disruptions of nature, like the roadside defoliations discussed in the preceding chapter, deprive the people who live there.

Carson provides an example of the heedless destruction of unchecked use of pesticides. She describes the westward spread of the Japanese beetle, an insect that first entered the United States in 1916. The eastern states were reasonably successful at using natural forms of control. However, despite lacking justification, officials in Michigan launched an indiscriminate chemical attack that resulted in the destruction of birds and animals and sickening humans. This was done without the consent of the residents of the area. Similar chemical campaigns were launched in other Midwestern states with similar effects.

Despite the existence of effective alternatives and clear evidence of harm, the spraying continued. A bill requiring consultation with government wildlife agencies was opposed on the grounds consultation was “usual” and the bill was, therefore, unnecessary. In addition, funds for insecticide research disappeared in the 1950s, with the research funding totaling “a small fraction of 1 per cent” spent on the spraying program. Meanwhile, the Japanese beetle continued to move westward.

Carson argues the use of pesticides was done “in a spirit of crisis” that was not rooted in fact, with disastrous effects to the environment. She raises a question she considers not just scientific but moral: “whether any civilization can wage relentless war on life without destroying itself, and without losing the right to be called civilized.”