debate on pesticides

[The Human Price]

1) We use different sources and resources for energy every day, such as nuclear energy, petroleum, and coal. These things make our life more efficient, yet most people don’t think of the negative effects that they impose on our environment. Pesticides were once used without much afterthought, just like the energy sources that we use today. What are some of the negative effects that our current energy systems impose on our environment, and should we be more cautious of our use of them?

2) Carson discusses how, through ecology, (115) pesticides travel to animals even though they were originally applied only to trees. This parallels to how medications and hormones enter into our systems when they are administered to animals that we consume. Does Carson’s display of the harm of pesticides push you toward vegetarianism or does it make you scared of vegetables?

3) Do you believe that humans are a part of nature or separate from nature? How does Carson’s description of humans as a part of nature reflect Aldo Leopold’s sentiment in The Land Ethic?

[Vincent Searfoss]

Human beings are inextricably a part of nature and I think that it is a belief in the contrary that creates the mindset of "conquest" over nature that Aldo Leopold mentions. What other than our higher intellectual processes separate us from other species? By realizing that human beings are as much a natural part of this world as any other organism we also realize that we have certain obligations to the land. We must not, as Leopold cautions, view the land as property but as space where we can live and sustain ourselves without doing damage that will affect other species or the land itself. It is a natural process for humans to create, innovate, build, and expand, but it is not a natural process to poison or ruin the environment in the process. A fine balance must be struck between the things we create and the resources that are used in the process. Perhaps the argument that humans are separate from nature arises because humans insist on changing the surroundings and leaving signs of our presence and work wherever we go. By implication, it must then not be a "natural" act to alter the natural world on any grand scale. I believe however, that given the intelligence of the human race, it is natural for us to create with a constant mindfulness of the environment, to be able to find a solution to reduce negative effects on the environment for every new product developed. This must be the case if we are to live in harmony with the environment; we must be able to benefit from the natural world as well as being able to expand upon it. In other words, we need to be able to give back to the earth as much as we take from it. Acknowledging that we are a part of nature is the first step to take towards this awareness of our symbiotic relationship with the environment and the necessary actions that must be taken or limited as such.

[Kim K]

I agree with Vincent in some ways; that we should take care of the earth and replenish used natural resources, limiting our impact. However, I do not know if our tendency to change our surroundings and exploit resources to the point of ruin is “natural” or not… As Vincent says, we are part of nature, so who is to say that our conquest mentality isn’t natural? I’m not the first to compare the human race to a virus, but we do seem to have similar ravenous tendencies for growth, physically and as a population. However, whether or not humans’ actions are “natural” seems unimportant in the long run; a virus population would be much better off if it did not continue to take from the infected body until that body’s death (leading to the death of the virus as well). So maybe our intellegence ultimately serves our population’s self-preservation, and we can keep ourselves from exploiting our environment to the point of our own ruin. Whether or not exploitation is “natural” or if it is merely a bad, learned behavior, we still should not over-consume to help the human race’s chances for survival in future.
As another consideration, the “conquering” tendency of humans is not constant across different peoples; for example, Native Americans seemed to live in harmony with nature quite well. So perhaps over-consumption is only culturally encouraged, not part of human instinct.
All of the above being said, I personally believe in using sustainable practices so that we limit our impact on nature. From a self-centered perspective, I took the message of Disney’s The Lion King to heart and fear messing with the overall balance of Earth’s ecosystem, which could then lead to a tougher life for humans. Also, from a moral perspective, I do not think it is fair to ruin an animal’s home when he doesn’t actively ruin mine. And finally, I believe in conservation from a childish, girly perspective; some species are so cute and I wouldn’t want them to become extinct.

[CaseyS]

2.) Carson's display of the harm of pesticides really doesn't affect my opinion of vegetables at all. In the way that she presents the data, basically everything that humans consume is harmed by pesticides; plants are affected, animals that eat the plants are affected, animals that eat animals that eat plants are affected. So humans are technically affected by pesticides regardless to whether or not they are vegetarians. Adding to this is the fact that breathing in pesticides can also cause harmful effects. Carson's article makes me terrified of the hidden effects of pesticides on humans (especially about how toxins can basically kill my liver), but not necessarily of vegetables. Carson almost makes it seem as though we are trapped in a world of pesticides...there's no escaping their effects. That is scary. But then, who's to say that if we come up with an alternative, unharmful source to replace pesticides, that this new "unharmful" source won't negatively react in combination with other toxins already stored in our bodies. I think that is the most terrifying aspect of Carson's argument: that the toxins from pesticides can be stored inside our bodies for years seemingly causing no harm, but could then suddenly react with another chemical and have deadly effects.

[EBjanes]

In response to question 2, I've been aware of the risks of eating both meat and vegetables. Without both, what is there left to eat? Doritos and soda? Both of which originate from organic material. I prefer to buy local meat at my local store where I know the meat came from good old Lancaster County. Likewise with vegetables, I usually purchase mine from farm stands that I know do not use heavy chemicals and spray continuously. As soon as I get my own place, I will grow all of my own vegetables so that I am directly responsible for what goes into my food.

Humans are a part of nature but we've upset the balance of power. There should be a mutalistic relationship between us and nature, but as of late we've abused the power we have and are simply raping the land of its resources. We ought to take the lessons of the Native Americans to heart and realize that we cannot survive without nature and it will soon be destroyed by us if we do not desist from our disastrous ways.