Haiti would be number one. The continuing polarization of the United States government may be number two. This would make the lack of progress our country has made in the past year number three (I'm still an Obama believer, though). The list goes on and includes everything from substantial funding cuts to vital programs, to the low employment rate, and yes, I have to say it, to Conan being off the air. But something which is of crucial global importance is hardly being mentioned at all in the sh** list of today's world.
And yes, my friends, I'm talking about the environment.
But before I go on, I have some questions I want YOU (yes, YOU) to answer about it at the end of the article. No right or wrong answers. No personal judgments. All I'm looking for is an open dialogue.
Published in 1962, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring
"Much of the criticism directed at her played on stereotypes of her sex. Calling her 'hysterical' fit the bill exactly. Time magazine added the charge that she had used 'emotion-fanning words.' Her credibility as a scientist was attacked as well: opponents financed the production of propaganda that supposedly refuted her work. It was all part of an intense, well-financed negative campaign, not against a political candidate but against a book and its author. Carson brought two decisive strengths to this battle: a scrupulous respect for the truth and a remarkable degree of personal course. She had checked and rechecked every paragraph in Silent Spring
Even though Carson's warnings against the invisible dangers of DDT, other pesticides, and chemicals played a part in the DDT ban in the United States, our country still produces and exports such products abroad. Because of this, Gore's claim makes sense that pesticide use on farms has doubled to 1.1 billion tons a year since 1962, an increase by 400 percent.
"This not only involves a readiness to profit by selling others a hazard we will not accept for ourselves; it also reflects an elemental failure to comprehend that the laws of science do not observe the boundaries of politics," Gore writes. "Poisoning the food chain anywhere ultimately poisons the food chain everywhere."
I highly encourage you read his full introduction here, because I'm barely scratching the surface of this huge argument.
None of this is new news, of course, but here are only some of my questions:
- Has environmentalism changed for you personally through the years? If so, how and/or why? If not, why?
- Even if you know that a generic [insert produce item of choice] brand is less healthy for you than an organic [insert same produce item of choice] brand, what makes you purchase one or the other? Obviously price is a big part of it, but what else goes into that decision, and what would make you change your mind?
- We're all aware that recycling is good for the environment, but what steps, if any, do you take to recycle? If so, why? If not, why? Also, are there any factors that make recycling simpler or more difficult for you?
- Obviously, driving your car is much less "green" than walking, biking, carpooling... the list goes on... Do you make an effort in your daily life to get from place to place in a more environmentally friendly way? If so, what do you do and why? If not, why not and what would make you consider doing so?
I would GREATLY appreciate any feedback on these questions, or on the topics I've mentioned in general.
Kayla,
I'm a semi retired farmer, one of those guys who has used herbicides, pesticides, and commercial fertilizers ever since they became available. I was also in the livestock business and used insecticides and medications of all kinds.
Yes, I think all of those inputs have been grossly over used. I was never one who thought if a little was good a lot would be better. But, if anyone thinks we could feed the world population without those inputs, they are very much misinformed.
Now, do I think man can alter the environment? He most certainly can and has. I was born in the early '30s (dust bowl days). If we had continued farming practices of that day, western Kansas would certainly be an arid wasteland of sifting sand that wouldn't even sustain the roaming herds of buffalo and nomadic Indian tribes. If you know the area and history of certain fields, you still see the evidence of man's abuse and neglect of those fields. Look at the air quality reports for the metropolitan areas. Sometimes that environment is certainly less friendly than it was before concentrated masses of mankind took over the terrain. Imagine what that air quality would be today, if all energy resources were still limited to fossil fuels.
Do we need the radical extremes of those who think we should go back to a lifestyle that would require God to provide manna every morning like he did for Moses and the wandering tribes in the desert? Do we need the radical extremists that say, forget the environment because God's in control and man can't permanently alter nature? That may work for that generation, but their children or grandchildren will have a drastically modified lifestyle as a consequence of the short term success of their predecessors.
Do we need regulation and enforcement to control society? I'm afraid we do. Do we need sensible and realistic approaches? I'm quite sure we do. Do we need radical extremist on both ends of the debate to make those regulations and enforce them? Certainly not!
Kayla,
This was a very excellent post. Thank you for writing it. Your presentation is very even-minded and fair, yet your appeal to us is rightly straightforward.
It's wrong for us to export pesticides and herbicides that are harmful to humans and our water and soil resources. It's just plain wrong.
The questions you ask are fair ones. They've made me stop and think and take inventory of my own practices, and hopefully your words will also reach others who need to inventory their contributions to the world health and well-being as well.
Magnificent. Keep writing! We need you.