Impact of Chemicals on Agriculture: Norman Borlaug Vs Rachel Carson
In examining the article “Mankind and Civilization at Another Crossroad in Balance with Nature – A Biological Myth” by Norman Borlaug, he presented his main concerns centering on how environmentalists can oppose the use of agricultural chemicals. Borlaug provides feedback in response to the book “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson, where he holds a biased viewpoint argument for agricultural chemicals, talking about how important it is for us to understand the truth and impact behind agricultural chemicals to protect our food production to our community.
Borlaug begins by explaining the positive impact the pesticide DDT may have on our society and how it controls malaria, protects our crops, and increases food and fiber production. Then he argues with Carson about the key contributions of DDT and argues that Carson fails to mention “Silent Spring” as a contribution to the effect of DDT. Then he goes on to mention organizations like the National Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and Environmental Defense Fund are influencing the public. Following this, Borlaug also describes in detail how devastating life without agrochemicals would be, using cotton and pests as references. Finally, Borlaug points out that a complete ban on pesticides in the U.S. would result in about a 50% reduction in crop yields and 4 to 5 fold higher in food prices.
Rachel Carson's article “CARSON; Rachel Carson Answers her Critics” considers a rebuttal to Norman Borlaug's article talking about the use of agricultural chemicals. On the other hand, Carson argues that it is important for us to protect and appreciate the environment, as well as the importance of species and plants to the ecosystem. By supporting factual stories and talking about examples of animals. Carson argues for the possible harmful effects agricultural chemicals can bring.
Using examples of declining eagle populations and fewer eagle eggs, Carson illustrates how pesticides can cause a devastating domino effect on wildlife. Unlike Borlaug, Carson holds the view that chemicals are extremely harmful when supported with factual tests on animals. The university’s study would then be biased toward chemicals, leading to the trustees having no problem or opinion on the result. In conclusion, Carson said the only way to stop the destruction of wildlife is through our actions and voices.
By evaluating and comparing the two articles, they both show strength in describing their views and supporting them with factual arguments. The two educational articles detail how large organizations influence people, leading to flawed research and investigation while providing several examples of biased arguments. They also delve into how our environment has deteriorated and give a glimpse into what agriculture looks like in our country today. The arguments in both articles are compelling and provide strong evidence that makes you think deeply about the evolution of agriculture and the ingredients in our food.
The main weakness from reading both articles is that both authors only show a biased view of their own arguments, as these articles are selective in their research and selection of examples. Although both authors provide factual arguments when describing their views, both articles do not provide citations about their sources of information. In some cases, they simply used a simple fact and example to support their arguments without providing references, resulting in articles that were overly opinionated and sometimes off-topic. From my perspective, I found the statements and arguments in both articles to be too long and repetitive, which made me feel that some of their arguments were weak and not credible.
Based on the reading, I found the article “Mankind and Civilization at Another Crossroad in Balance with Nature – A Biological Myth” by Norman Borlaug more convincing compared to Rachel Carson's article “CARSON; Rachel Carson Answers her Critics,” because his article is very well written and vies examples that are more convincing for those who have not read “Silent Spring.” Although, the article was written by Carson also provides persuasive statements and samples of the negative effects of improper pesticide use. However, Carson takes an extreme approach in the article and does not mention any benefits of pesticide use. To summarize my position after reading both articles, I believe that the use of agricultural chemicals is vital to our survival because pesticides have indeed allowed the population, crop yields, and fiber production to grow and develop to an unprecedented level of survival. Based on today's agriculture, I think we have learned from the past mistakes of pesticides harming the environment and have adjusted the use of chemicals to allow biodiversity and species to thrive wherever they are, then we have a tendency not to ignore the benefits of DDT chemicals that are revolutionary and are helpful to our agriculture.
