Rachel Louise Carson born in 1907 is a renowned editor and professor of aquatic biology. She is known for her book The Silent Spring, in which she criticizes farmers for using environmentally hazardous chemicals in the name of better production. Published in 1962, her article attracted enormous public indignation that prompted . Kennedy to order a federal investigation into the issue. Her article The Obligation to Endure is included in this publication. According to Carson (1962), man has failed to realize the setbacks of his own actions. This is the present conditions of the environment. Therefore, it is also right to argue that the environment should not dictate how people should respond to everyday occurrences.
According to Carson (1962), the environment affects mans surrounding. She further argues that today and in the recent past, people are contributing a lot to distorting a balance existing between the environment and their surrounding. In her article, Carson gives a clear distinction between the naturally occurring chemicals and those emitted because of humans activity through the bombardment of atoms. From her argument, it is clear that people are not only ignorant of the substances released to the atmosphere, but do not also give other forms of life the time to adapt to these changes in the atmosphere. She writes, 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 (Carson, 1962, par. 5).
When Carson says that people use non-selective methods to eliminate the bad and the good, what she implies is that we learn painfully as we strive to modify even the human germ plasm. She alludes to the 1920s Eugenics that championed for a method of selective breeding. As we read Carsons piece, we devastatingly learn that as far as pesticides and insecticides are concerned, man has failed to come up with a sustainable means of dealing with these problems. In this article, Carson appeals to her readers emotions through many instances. For example, she says, Among them are many that are used in mans war against nature (Carson, 1962, par. 6).
Carson speaks with passion, and if asked to give an opinion on her choice to study conservation biology, I would gladly say she was writing to write about ecology. Her theme is logical and based on her research and findings and gives a description of the present state of the ecology with . To some extent, Carson speaks with anger, and according to her, man has attempted to stay in control. She argues that if people learned to leave things in the way nature intended them to be, we would cease to be tormented by these environmental issues. She blames everyone for contributing to this environmental menace because we tolerate a diet of weak poison (Carson, 1962, par. 22).
Carson sounds so sure of her findings and facts. However, it would be inappropriate to conclude that her arguments are free of flaws. On the contrary, she should reconsider her view that the chemical war is never won (Carson, 1962, par. 8). This is entirely wrong because taking into account the recent innovations, there has been a range of technological advances in an attempt to reduce the negative impacts that chemicals have on the environment. Carson employs a persuasive tone and poses questions as she explains ways in which friendly agriculture can thrive. For instance, Carson does not assume that her readers know about what she is talking about; she breaks things down clearly. Her mode of argument is persuasive and effectively convincing. This is evident because she made President John F. Kennedy direct an investigation to ascertain her claims (Carson, 1962).
Suffice it to say that human beings are always in conflict with their own environment, without which, however, they will not be able to survive. In her article, she calls this process mans war against nature (Carson, 1962, par. 6). Through this, we learn that we appear to be our own best enemies. Her article is insightful and full of sound reasons that people should learn to see beyond their quest to control the environment. In my opinion, Carson does well in attracting the readers attention and stirring their imagination as she offers them to envision how things ought to be in the environment. Her basis of the argument is clear and presents unprecedented knowledge on how our own actions are destructive. Carson is factual and analytical in her argument as well as reflective in some way to ensure that she has summoned enough support to her ideology. She organizes her argument in a logical form and displays a great deal of creativity throughout her article. The importance of the article is demonstrated by the interest it attracted in 1962. Finally, Carsons choice of words is excellent and remarkably effective in passing the message by making the reader adopt her ideology.