Utilisateur:Pirotech/trad-SilentSpring

Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.

Sommaire

[modifier] Thèse

Le livre déclare que l'utilisation non controlée de pesticides entraine non seulement des morts chez les animaux, en particulier les oiseaux, mais aussi chez les humains. Son titre évoque un printemps où l'on n'entendrait pas le chant des oiseaux parce qu'ils seraient tous morts à cause des pesticides. Ce titre a été inspiré par un poème de John Keats, "La Belle Dame sans Merci", qui contient les lignes : « The sedge is wither'd from the lake, And no birds sing » ; ce qui signifie en français : « La carex est fanée près du lac, et nul oiseau ne chante. »[1]

The book stated that uncontrolled pesticide use led to the deaths of not only animals, especially birds, but also humans. Its title was meant to evoke a spring season in which no bird songs could be heard, because they had all died from pesticides. Its title was inspired by a poem by John Keats, "La Belle Dame sans Merci", which contained the lines "The sedge is wither'd from the lake, And no birds sing."[2]

[modifier] Soutien

Le professeur d'histoire Gary Kroll fit observer que « Printemps silencieux de Rachel Carson a joué un grand rôle dans l'établissement de l'écologisme comme "sujet subversif" —comme une vision allant à l'encontre du matérialisme, du scientisme, et du contrôle de la nature par la technologie. »[3]

History professor Gary Kroll commented, "Rachel Carson's Silent Spring played a large role in articulating ecology as a 'subversive subject'— as a perspective that cut against the grain of materialism, scientism, and the technologically engineered control of nature."[4]

Le magazine Time a déclaré dans une publication de 1999, qu'environ un an après la publication de Printemps silencieux, « tous les critiques de Carson, excepté ceux qui servaient leurs propres intérêts, cherchèrent très vite un terrain plus sûr. Par leur ignoble campagne destinée à réduire les protestations d'une courageuse scientifique à un simple problème de relations publiques, les intérêts de l'industrie chimique n'ont fait qu'éveiller plus encore la conscience du public. »

According to Time magazine in 1999, within a year or so of its publication, "all but the most self-serving of Carson's attackers were backing rapidly toward safer ground. In their ugly campaign to reduce a brave scientist's protest to a matter of public relations, the chemical interests had only increased public awareness."

Carson a clairement fait comprendre qu'elle ne préconisait pas l'interdiction totale des pesticides utiles, mais qu'elle encourageait au contraire une utilisation prudente et responsable qui tient compte de l'impact des produits chimiques sur tout l'écosystème. Toutefois, certains de ses détracteurs affirmèrent qu'elle demandait l'élimination de tous les pesticides.[5]

Carson had made it clear she was not advocating the banning or complete withdrawal of helpful pesticides, but was instead encouraging responsible and carefully managed use, with an awareness of the chemicals' impact on the entire ecosystem. However, some critics asserted that she was calling for the elimination of all pesticides.[6]

[modifier] Critiques

Avant même que Printemps silencieux ne soit publié par Houghton Mifflin en 1962, le livre rencontra une forte opposition. En 1999, on pouvait lire dans le Time :

« Carson reçut des menaces de poursuites et fut tournée en dérision. On insinua entre autres que cette scientifique minutieuse n'était qu'une « hystérique » inapte à écrire un tel livre. Une grande contre-attaque fut organisée, conduite par Monsanto, Velsicol et American Cyanamid—en réalité, l'industrie chimique tout entière— dûment supportée par le Département de l'Agriculture ainsi que les médias les plus réservés. »

Even before Silent Spring was published by Houghton Mifflin in 1962, there was strong opposition to it. According to Time in 1999:

Carson was violently assailed by threats of lawsuits and derision, including suggestions that this meticulous scientist was a "hysterical woman" unqualified to write such a book. A huge counterattack was organized and led by Monsanto, Velsicol, American Cyanamid—indeed, the whole chemical industry—duly supported by the Agriculture Department as well as the more cautious in the media.

Dans les années 1960, Robert White-Stevens, biochimiste et ancien porte-parole de l'industrie chimiqe, déclara que « si l'homme devait suivre les enseignements de Miss Carson, nous retournerions aux Moyen-Âge et les insectes, les maladies et la vermine hériteraient une nouvelle fois de la Terre. »[7]

In the 1960s, biochemist and former chemical industry spokesman Robert White-Stevens stated, "If man were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth."[8]

Les défenseurs de l'industrie et de l'agribusiness continuent de critiquer Printemps silencieux. Dans son essai de 2005 intitulé « The Harm That Pressure Groups Can Do » (Le mal que les groupes de pression peuvent faire), l'homme politique britannique Dick Taverne condamnait Carson :

Carson ne semblait pas prendre en compte le rôle vital que le DDT a joué dans le contrôle de la transmission de la malaria en tuant les moustiques qui transmettent le parasite [...] C'est le plus efficace des agents jamais développés sauver des vies humaines [...] Rachel Carson est pour nous tous une mise en garde contre le danger de négliger une approche basée sur des preuves et la nécessité de mettre en balance bénéfices et risques potentiels : on peut affirmer que la campagne anti-DDT qu'elle a inspirée a été responsable de presque autant de morts que les pires dictateurs du dernier siècle. [9]

Industry and agribusiness advocates continue to criticize Silent Spring. In a 2005 essay, "The Harm That Pressure Groups Can Do", British politician Dick Taverne was damning in his criticism of Carson:

Carson didn't seem to take into account the vital role (DDT) played in controlling the transmission of malaria by killing the mosquitoes that carry the parasite (...) It is the single most effective agent ever developed for saving human life (...) Rachel Carson is a warning to us all of the dangers of neglecting the evidence-based approach and the need to weight potential risk against benefit: it can be argued that the anti-DDT campaign she inspired was responsible for almost as many deaths as some of the worst dictators of the last century. [10]

Toutefois, le DDT n'a jamais été interdit pour une utilisation anti-malaria,[11] et Carson affirmait dans Printemps silencieux que :

Aucun individu responsable ne peut prétendre que les maladies véhiculées par des insectes doivent être ignorées. La question urgente qui se présente maintenant est de savoir s'il est bien sage et responsable de s'attaquer au problème avec des méthodes qui ne font très vite qu'empirer les choses. On a beaucoup entendu parler dans le monde de la lutte triomphale contre la maladie par le contrôle des insectes vecteurs de contamination, mais on a peu entendu parler de la face cachée de l'histoire - les défaites, les victoires de courte durée qui font que s'offre désormais à nous la perspective alarmante d'insectes ennemis rendus en fait plus résistants grâce à nos efforts. Pire, nous avons peut-être détruit nos propres armes. Quelle est l'ampleur de ce revers ? La liste des espèces résistantes inclut pratiquement tous les groupes d'insectes **ayant des conséquences médicales**. [...] Les programmes de lutte contre la malaria sont menacés par une résistance chez les moustiques. [...] Un bon conseil pratique serait « Vaporisez aussi peu que possible » plutôt que « Vaporisez au maximum de vos capacités » [...] Le stress sur la population de nuisibles devrait être aussi léger que possible.

However, DDT has never been banned for anti-malaria use,[12] and Carson argued in "Silent Spring" that:

No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. The world has heard much of the triumphant war against disease through the control of insect vectors of infection, but it has heard little of the other side of the story—the defeats, the short-lived triumphs that now strongly support the alarming view that the insect enemy has been made actually stronger by our efforts. Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting. ... What is the measure of this setback? The list of resistant species now includes practically all of the insect groups of medical importance. ... Malaria programmes are threatened by resistance among mosquitoes. ... Practical advice should be 'Spray as little as you possibly can' rather than 'Spray to the limit of your capacity' ..., Pressure on the pest population should always be as slight as possible.

Dans les années 2000, Carson et Printemps silencieux ont fait l'objet d'attaques de certains conservateurs qui affirment que les restrictions sur le DDT ont causé des morts inutiles; et plus généralement qu'une règlementation environnementale restreint inutilement une économie libre.[13][14]Par exemple, le magazine conservateur Human Events a donné une mention honorable à Printemps silencieux pour les « 10 livres les plus nuisibles des XIXe et XXe siècles ».[15] et en 2002, pour le 40e anniversaire du livre, le magazine Reason a publié un essai de l'économiste Ronald Bailey, ancien membre du Competitive Enterprise Institute.[16] La Fondation Reason et le Competitive Enterprise Institute ont tous deux reçus des financements conséquents de compagnies appartenant aux industries soumis à la règlementation.[17]

Both the Reason Foundation and the CEI have received substantial funding from corporations in regulated industries.[18][19] Bailey argued that the book had a mixed legacy:

The book did point to problems that had not been adequately addressed, such as the effects of DDT on some wildlife. And given the state of the science at the time she wrote, one might even make the case that Carson's concerns about the effects of synthetic chemicals on human health were not completely unwarranted. Along with other researchers, she was simply ignorant of the facts. But after four decades in which tens of billions of dollars have been wasted chasing imaginary risks without measurably improving American health, her intellectual descendants don't have the same excuse.[20]


In the 2000s, Carson and Silent Spring have come under increasing attack from some conservatives who argue that restrictions placed on DDT have caused needless death, and more generally that environmental regulation unnecessarily restricts economic freedom.[21][14] For example, the conservative magazine Human Events gave Silent Spring an honorable mention for the "Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries,"[15] and in 2002, to mark its 40 anniversary, Reason Magazine published an essay by economist Ronald Bailey, a former fellow with the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.[22] Both the Reason Foundation and the CEI have received substantial funding from corporations in regulated industries.[23][24] Bailey argued that the book had a mixed legacy:

The book did point to problems that had not been adequately addressed, such as the effects of DDT on some wildlife. And given the state of the science at the time she wrote, one might even make the case that Carson's concerns about the effects of synthetic chemicals on human health were not completely unwarranted. Along with other researchers, she was simply ignorant of the facts. But after four decades in which tens of billions of dollars have been wasted chasing imaginary risks without measurably improving American health, her intellectual descendants don't have the same excuse.[25]

Certains environnementalistes estiment ces récentes critiques de Printemps silencieux et Rachel Carson **and concomitant push for DDT** font partie d'une stratégie **sponsored** pour discréditer le mouvement **environnementaliste**.[26][27][28]

Some environmentalists consider this latter day criticism of Silent Spring and Rachel Carson and concomitant push for DDT to be an industry sponsored strategy to discredit the environmental movement.[29][30][31] For example, Monica Moore of Pesticide Action Network has argued that "Renewed promotion of DDT and attacks on those who would limit its use isn’t about malaria, or even DDT. It is a cynical “better living through chemistry” campaign intended to discredit the environmental health movement, with support from the Bush administration and others who seek nothing less than the dismantling of health and environmental protections."[32].

[modifier] See also

[modifier] Références

  1. ↑ Peter A. Coates. (October 2005), (en) "The Strange Stillness of the Past: Toward an Environmental History of Sound and Noise". Environmental History, Volume 10, Issue 4. Consulté le 4 novembre 2007.
  2. ↑ Peter A. Coates. (October 2005), "The Strange Stillness of the Past: Toward an Environmental History of Sound and Noise". Environmental History, Volume 10, Issue 4. Retrieved on 2007-11-04.
  3. ↑ Gary Kroll, (en) "Rachel Carson-Silent Spring: A Brief History of Ecology as a Subversive Subject". Onlineethics.org: National Academy of Engineering. Consulté le 4 novembre 2007.
  4. ↑ Gary Kroll, "Rachel Carson-Silent Spring: A Brief History of Ecology as a Subversive Subject". Onlineethics.org: National Academy of Engineering. Retrieved 2007-11-04.
  5. ↑ Murphy, Priscilla Coit. What a Book Can Do: The Publication and Reception of Silent Spring. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2005. ISBN 978-1-55849-582-1
  6. ↑ Murphy, Priscilla Coit. What a Book Can Do: The Publication and Reception of Silent Spring. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2005. ISBN 978-1-55849-582-1
  7. ↑ Dorothy McLaughlin. (en) "Fooling with Nature: Silent Spring Revisited". PBS Frontline. Consulté le 4 novembre 2007.
  8. ↑ Dorothy McLaughlin. "Fooling with Nature: Silent Spring Revisited". PBS Frontline. Retrieved 2007-11-04.
  9. ↑ Taverne, Dick "The Harm That Pressure Groups Can Do", collected in Panic Nation, 2005, edited by Stanley Feldman and Vincent Marks, ISBN 1-84454-122-3.
  10. ↑ Taverne, Dick "The Harm That Pressure Groups Can Do", collected in Panic Nation, 2005, edited by Stanley Feldman and Vincent Marks, ISBN 1-84454-122-3.
  11. ↑ http://www.pops.int/
  12. ↑ http://www.pops.int/
  13. ↑ (en) Lytle, Mark Hamilton. The Gentle Subversive: Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and the Rise of the Environmental Movement. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007 ISBN 0-19-517246-9
  14. ↑ a  b  Parmi les exemples récents de critiques de Carson :
    (a) Rich Karlgaard, (en) "But Her Heart Was Good", Forbes.com, 18 mai 2007. Consulté le 23 septembre 2007.
    (b) Keith Lockitch, (en) "Rachel Carson's Genocide", Capitalism Magazine, 23 May 2007. Consulté le 24 mai 2007
    (c) Paul Driessen, (en) "Forty Years of Perverse 'Responsibility,'", The Washington Times, 29 avril 2007. Consulté le 30 mai 2007.
    (d) Iain Murray, (en) "Silent Alarmism: A Centennial We Could Do Without", National Review, 31 mai 2007. Consulté le 31 mai 2007.
  15. ↑ a  b  (en) Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries, consulté le 24 août 2007
  16. ↑ "Ron Bailey bio"
  17. ↑ (en) W. Bush's Anti-Environmental Advisors
  18. ↑ W. Bush's Anti-Environmental Advisors
  19. ↑ Tempest
  20. ↑ "Silent Spring at 40", Ronald Bailey, Reason, June 12, 2002
  21. ↑ Lytle, Mark Hamilton. The Gentle Subversive: Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and the Rise of the Environmental Movement. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007 ISBN 0-19-517246-9
  22. ↑ "Ron Bailey bio"
  23. ↑ W. Bush's Anti-Environmental Advisors
  24. ↑ Tempest
  25. ↑ "Silent Spring at 40", Ronald Bailey, Reason, June 12, 2002
  26. ↑ Rachel Carson, Mass Murderer?: The creation of an anti-environmental myth. Aaron Swartz, Extra!, September/October, 2007
  27. ↑ Rachel Carson's Birthday Bashing, Kirsten Weir, Salon.com, June 29, 2007.
  28. ↑ David Roberts, "My one and only post on the Rachel Carson nonsense" Grist.com, May 24, 2007. Accessed September 23, 2007.
  29. ↑ Rachel Carson, Mass Murderer?: The creation of an anti-environmental myth. Aaron Swartz, Extra!, September/October, 2007
  30. ↑ Rachel Carson's Birthday Bashing, Kirsten Weir, Salon.com, June 29, 2007.
  31. ↑ David Roberts, "My one and only post on the Rachel Carson nonsense" Grist.com, May 24, 2007. Accessed September 23, 2007.
  32. ↑ Monica Moore, "First Words", PAN Magazine, Fall 2006. Accessed September 23, 2007.