On "The Obligation to Endure" by Rachel Carson

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1170/is_n2_v26/ai_18246331/

In August of 1945, the United States dropped a nuclear bomb on two towns in Japan: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When Rachel Carson was writing in the 1950s, these were recent occurrences which is evident when she mentions Strontium 90. It is particularly impressive that she was so much in the time as well as significantly ahead of her time. While most people were excited by the fact that they could now use “insect bombs” to kill off all the pesky little creatures that had been bothering them and their crops, Carson was far-sighted enough to worry about the impact on our ecological system. She makes this case in a powerful way in “The Obligation to Endure”.

Carson commences by pointing out the effect of the environment on our surroundings and how man in recent time has upset the balance of this equilibrium. Take the example of Strontium 90. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Strontium 90 is “a radioactive tracer in medical and agriculture studies.” They go on to say that it was widely dispersed in the 1950s and 60s in fall-out from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, which is what Carson is referring to when she says that the Strontium 90 is “released through nuclear explosions.” At the time that Carson was writing the book Silent Spring (1962), from which this essay is taken, there was widespread concern about the amount of Strontium 90 in cow’s milk, due to its slow fall-out and biological similarity to calcium. But a study by Larson and Ebner (1958) concluded:

“The present knowledge strongly suggests that the current and projected levels of Sr-90 in milk should not cause us concern when compared to radiation received from natural sources; but further studies are necessary to be certain if this is true.”

Carson paints a vivid picture of the difference between the natural occurrence of chemicals on our planet versus the bombardment of chemicals to which we are submitting our ecosystem. She draws our attention to the fact that not only are we not fully cognizant of what we are putting out into the atmosphere, we are also not allowing any time for our animals and plants to adapt to these substances. She writes:

“- 500 new chemicals to which the bodies of men and animals are required somehow to adapt each year, chemicals totally outside the limits of biologic experience. “

She goes on, in a poetically painful manner, to say: “Among them are many that are used in man’s war against nature.”

Man’s war against nature. We have not looked back. When Carson points out that we use “non-selective chemicals” to kill “the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’”, what she is in essence saying is that we are performing chemotherapy on the planet. In the same way that we kill both the good and the bad cells when we are treating someone for cancer.

The most spine-chilling of her observations comes when she mentions how some would like to modify the human germ plasm. She is almost definitely alluding to the social movement Eugenics, popular in the 1920s and 30s, which advocated selective breeding in humans. In itself an immensely terrifying idea, Carson adds her own horrifying twist on it: perhaps we have lost control already, due to gene mutations caused by radiation and chemicals.

However, the saddest part of all is that when we read this piece, it is clear that we have not made any significant headway where pesticides and insecticides are concerned since 1962, when Silent Spring was published. Take the following extract, which could have been written today, while we regard the devastation that is the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (with a little modification):

“Future historians may well be amazed by our distorted sense of proportion. How could intelligent beings seek to control a few unwanted species by a method that contaminated the entire environment and brought the threat of disease and death even to their own kind?”

Carson speaks with conviction, and as a marine biologist and zoologist, she was well-qualified to write about ecology. Her subject-matter is mostly gleaned from her own research. Fifty years on, we have seen disasters like the one in Chernobyl, but we have also seen the relative safety of nuclear energy. Unfortunately we have not seen a lessening of our assault on the environment. Largely due to Carson’s writings President Kennedy set up an environmental affairs office, known today as the Environmental Protection Agency. It is a laudable agency to have created, but like most government agencies, it lacks power and funding (although the budget for the year 2010 was up 34% from the year before).

Rachel Carson’s concerns remain so relevant in our world today. Climate change and global warming remain debatable points instead of an accepted reality. Thanks to our indiscriminate use of pesticides, insects have become resistant to many of them and some, like the corn earworm, remain a real problem to farmers (Bellinger 1996). According to Brogdon and MacAllister (2010) resistance has developed to every chemical class of insecticide. Writing from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, they tell us: “Insecticide resistance is expected to directly and profoundly affect the reemergence of vector-borne disease…”

Carson was extremely prescient, vocally and eloquently so. But because her observations were to do with caring for an environment that nobody was worried about at the time and because her predictions sounded to many like a sure way of losing money, her words fell mostly on deaf ears.

Works Cited

1. Bellinger, Robert G. Department of Entomology, Clemson University. March 1996

http://ipm.ncsu.edu/safety/factsheets/resistan.pdf

2..Brogdon, William G. and McAllister, Janet C. : “Insecticide Resistance and Vector

Control” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Feb. 23 2010 http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol4no4/brogdon.htm

3. Environmental Protection Agency www.epa.gov

4. Larson, B.L. and Ebner, K.E. “Significance of Strontium-90 in Milk: A Review”

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 41 No. 12 1647-1662
1958 by American Dairy Science Association ®

An analysis of Rosin's The Case against Breast-feeding

The Case against Breast-Feeding

By

Hanna Rosin

The Atlantic monthly, April 2009

I recently heard Hanna Rosin on NPR talking about her latest article, in the July/August 2010 issue of The Atlantic. It is titled “The End of Men” and from hearing her speak it is obvious that she is opinionated and likes to provoke. Having said that, I actually enjoyed listening to her and found her smart and amusing. However, in this article, The Case against Breast-Feeding, she sounds mostly angry and it seems as if she is trying to alleviate her guilt. She attempts to claim that breast-feeding is not necessary, and yet she doesn’t even seem to convince herself. The data she uses is very one-sided and she fails to mention the important statement made by the American Academy of Pediatrics in Pediatrics No. 115 Vol.2 February 2005 in which the benefits of breast-feeding, for both mother and child, are summarized. This statement also affirms that “considerable advances have occurred in recent years in the scientific knowledge of the benefits of breast-feeding.” (Pediatrics 2005)

I therefore feel strongly that Rosin’s sources are not up-to-date, and because she is offering a science-based argument she should have used more recent data. Instead she quotes an issue of Pediatrics from 1984 and then informs us that “Twenty-five years later, the picture hasn’t changed all that much.”

It is clear from the article that Rosin’s real issue lies with the fact that men cannot breast-feed. She graphically makes her point in the following sentence: “It was not the vacuum that was keeping me and my 21^st-century sisters down, but another sucking sound.” This is her opinion and not an effective argument. I am not saying that it is not hard for women to triumph in the work-place when they are also responsible for breast-feeding, but she might as well argue that being pregnant and giving birth are inconvenient and that women shouldn’t have to do it if men can’t. There is no getting away from the fact that men and women are different. We should celebrate that fact.

The article is well-organized and well-written but the ending is weak. The last paragraph starts: “My best guess is something I can’t quite articulate.” Her best guess? Which she can’t articulate? She is trying to present a scientific argument so guesswork doesn’t come into it, and the whole point of writing is to articulate. So her conclusion is sorely lacking. After all her arguments against breast-feeding, she also, in the last paragraph, admits to still nursing her baby and says: “I also know that this is probably my last chance to feel warm baby skin up against mine, and one day I will miss it.” Enough said.

The article is logically argued some of the time, but at other times Rosin’s arguments fall short and are too filled with her own baggage. She makes a good point in saying that breast-feeding has become an upper middle class ideal, which in itself is interesting, considering that it used to be something only the poor did. In fact centuries ago rich mothers would have wet-nurses instead of formula to do the “dirty deed” of feeding their own children. When Rosin mentions some pro-breast-feeding commercials aired by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2004, she says they are “dripping with sexual innuendo” and I find it hard to believe that this was the DHHS’ intention. I think it much more likely that Rosin herself projects the sexual innuendo onto them. Breasts have become completely sexualized in our society, which is a huge part of the problem that people have with breast-feeding today. We have such a fear of sex that we believe that one body part cannot possibly serve for sexual pleasure and for the good of our children. Without going into too much detail, it might help us to remember that other sexual organs are involved in both sexual intercourse and children (in particular, giving birth). So far I have not heard any objections to this.

In her article Rosin makes it plain that the biggest challenge lies with working mothers. She obviously finds it grossly unfair that working mothers should suffer because they have to breast-feed. And it is unfair. While women are taking care of the children, men get promotions. But this is not a problem with breast-feeding; it is a problem of how we as a society decide to deal with motherhood. Mothers and fathers offer different roles in their children’s up-bringing, and both should be supported, but to a large extent are not. And that is the fundamental dilemma that Rosin is grappling with.

The article did not change my mind about my strong belief that breast-feeding is very beneficial to both mother and child, and if a mother has enough support from her family as well as society, she will find it a rewarding, enriching experience. Undoubtedly it is better for the baby too – our bodies were made for this.