The Style and Arguments of Carson and Leopold

One thing that impressed me while reading Rachel Carson's chapter "The Obligation to Endure" from Silent Spring was the abundance of key concepts or "theoretical" ideas. A concept becomes a theory when it can be consistently relied upon to help solve a problem in understanding. It opens doors like a key. I made a list of concepts before last Wednesday's class in order to suggest topics to focus on: 1, Nature cannot keep pace with human changes; 2, The food cycle; 3, Biocides; 4, Escalation and Flareback; 5, Accumulation of chemicals; 6, Analogy to nuclear war; 7, Genetic Mutation; Intensive single-crop agriculture vs. natural diversity; 8, Invasive species; 9, Human rights; 10, Lack of oversight and research; Short term vs. long term interests; 11, the political/economic context. This style of clearly and concisely explaining ideas is part of the art of science writing. As the second paragraph of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, she is summarizing her main concerns and outlining her book as a whole. The chapter functions as a thesis, which is developed through the book. Our textbook's editor, Carl Herndl, in turn, is appropriating Carson's chapter in order to frame all the other anthologized essays in the textbook. This is a credit to the enormous influence of Carson in explaining how human impacts work. She is a heroic figure, exemplifying an environmental conscience, while guiding research, activism, and investment in sustainability. Carson has been accused of using emotional arguments and exaggerating her claims. Again, these accusations are a measure of the success of her arguments. There is indeed a tone of outrage and concern. How else is one to point out wrongs unless one says someone (or nature--which we depend on) has been wronged? Leopold's essay, which depends more on narration of anecdotes than it does scientific reasoning, also uses emotional appeals. Truth is often a matter of testimony. Another appeal, which is close to the emotional appeal, used by Leopold is an aesthetic appeal. We need a sense of grandeur and mystery in life in order to live fully. The wolf is one of those great mysteries, which we can sense is greater than ourselves, like all things divine. Mountains too have grandeur, because they represent a kind of unity and also the source of things like rivers. Wolves and mountains offer the aesthetic sense of the sublime, without which life would be dull. It would also simply cease to be possible. This calls to mind Carson's quote of Paul Shepard, who asks how we can "idealize [a] life" with just our "head out of water, inches above the limits of toleration." Who would want to accept this world? Who wants to live in "insipid surroundings," surrounded by "the noise of motors," in a world which is "just not quite fatal."