"LA PRIMAVERA SILENCIOSA"
Comentario: CUANDO SE ACERCA EL 50º ANIVERSARIO DE LA PRIMAVERA
SILENCIOSA,QUÉ DIRÍA RACHEL CARSON HOY? Por Paul
R. Ehrlich, Stanford University, para Environmental Health News; Junio 25, 2012,
(citado en Organic Consumers Association [ronniecummins@organicconsumers.org];
Jun.28, 2012)
(ENGLISH VERSION BELOW)
.jpg)
Mucha gente tiene la impresión de
que el cambio climático es el peor problema ambiental que hoy enfrenta la
humanidad. Y, ciertamente, sus consecuencias pueden ser catastróficas. Pero la
distribución de productos químicos tóxicos del un polo al otro es el caballo “tapado”
en la carrera. Podríamos seguir con nuestra actitud de ‘business as usual’ (no
pasa nada) y contar con que la buena suerte salve a la civilización. Quizás no
aparezcan sinergias verdaderamente letales, o ningún producto químico tenga
distribución global antes de que se descubra que es la causa de un cáncer.
Quizás los envenenamientos no hagan colapsar los sistemas ecológicos que
destruyan nuestra civilización. Quizás los avances en biología molecular
neutralicen todos los nuevos productos químicos o curen todas las enfermedades
peligrosas que aparezcan. Todo esto tal vez ocurra; o tal vez no. Es entonces razonable
sentarnos tranquilamente y no tomar medidas sustanciales? En las democracias la
decisión se encuentra en las manos de los ciudadanos; pienso que es claro como
el cristal lo que Rachel Carson, autora del libro del 1960 Primavera Silenciosa,
recomendaría hoy.
N.del E: Se recomienda enfáticamente leer el
artículo completo en este link:
Artículo completo (en Inglés): http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/commentary-paul-ehrlich-on-rachel-carson
N. del E: Cuando en 1961, recién recibido Ing. Químico de la U. de Buenos Aires, estaba yo desarrollando mi currícula para mi Master en Tecnología de Alimentos en los EEUU, todos los técnicos y científicos en el tema pensábamos que Rachel Carson exageraba, que era una fanática, y que , efectivamente, como dijo Robert White-Stevens, citado en el artículo comentado arriba, si le fuéramos a hacer caso a Rachel Carson, volveríamos a la edad de las cavernas. Estábamos alucinados por las nuevas tecnologías y aditivos milagrosos en el procesado de alimentos. Qué curioso que, cuatro décadas más tarde terminase yo ocupado profesional e intelectualmente en el desarrollo y certificación de normas orgánicas, y un crítico relativamente objetivo del desarrollo industrial corporativo a ultranza!... Uno de estos días voy a tratar de encontrar un artículo aparecido hacia fines de los '60 en la revista Esquire cuyo tema era algo así como "¿se pueden eliminar las guerras?" Para el articulista las guerras eran imprescindibles para consumir el exceso de producción de la humanidad. Para reemplazar ese exceso de producción se daban como probables alternativas para que la humanidad dejara de consumir bienes bélicos para defendernos de nuestros semejantes extranjeros, uniéndonos en la lucha contra una amenaza global, solo dos: * una invasión extraterrestre, o * que necesitásemos reducir las producciones excedentes debido al agotamiento de los recursos, o que alguien nos convenciera de algo así como una amenaza de catástrofe climática global.. Increíble este postulado de hace casi medio siglo!.... Todavía nos parecía algo de ciencia ficción, o ensoñaciones exageradas.
Nada como vivir unas cuantas décadas para que la realidad pueda - o deba - verse con otros ojos... Jorge Casale, Editor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full article: http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/commentary-paul-ehrlich-on-rachel-carson
N. of theE:
When in 1961, just graduated Chemical Engineer from U.of Buenos Aires, I was developing my M.S. in Food Tech. in the US, all the food technicians and scientists thought of Rachel Carson as a fanatic. As the article commented above claims that Robert White-Stevens said, if we were to hear Rachel Carson, we would all go back to the age of the caverns. We were allucinated by the new food processing additives and technologies.
How weird, then: who would have said that a few decades later I would end engaged professionally and intellectually in the development and certification of organic standards, and a relatively objective critic of the unchecked industrial agricuture and food corporations!...
One of these days I will try to find an article appeared at the end of the '60s in Esquire magazine whose subject was the question "¿is it possible to end war?" For that author war is unavoidable because it is necessary to destroy surpluss industrial production capacity. For humanity to stop consumption of war goods presently necessary to defend ourselves from enemies accross the borders, and to unite against a global threat, only two alternatives were given: * an extraterrestrial invasion, or * the need to reduce production surplusses due to the exhaustion of resources, or that somebody would convince us of the possibility of something like a threat of a global climatic catastrophe... Incredible such postulate thought of almost half a century ago!.... It looked to us as sicence fiction then. Or feverish daydreaming.
Nothing like living a few decades for reality to be seen with other eyes... Jorge Casale, Editor.
Nada como vivir unas cuantas décadas para que la realidad pueda - o deba - verse con otros ojos... Jorge Casale, Editor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary:
AS SILENT SPRING'S 50TH ANNIVERSARY
NEARS, WHAT WOULD RACHEL CARSON BE SAYING NOW? By Paul R. Ehrlich, Stanford
University, For Environmental Health News; June 25, 2012, (cited in Organic
Consumers Association [ronniecummins@organicconsumers.org]; Jun.28, 2012)
Many
people have the impression that climate disruption is the worst environmental
problem humanity faces, and indeed, its consequences may be catastrophic. But
the spread of toxic chemicals from pole to pole may be the dark horse in the
race. We could just pursue business as usual and count on luck to save
civilization. Maybe no truly lethal synergies will turn up, or no new chemical
will become global before it is discovered to cause cancer. Maybe the
poisonings will not collapse ecological systems and bring down civilization.
Perhaps advances in molecular biology will neutralize any dangerous new
chemicals or cure any serious diseases that appear. And perhaps they won’t. Is
it wise to sit by and not take substantial measures? In democracies, the
decision rests ultimately with the citizens; I think it is crystal clear what
Rachel Carson, author of the 1962 book Silent Spring, would have recommended.
Reading the full article, highly recomended:
N. of theE:
When in 1961, just graduated Chemical Engineer from U.of Buenos Aires, I was developing my M.S. in Food Tech. in the US, all the food technicians and scientists thought of Rachel Carson as a fanatic. As the article commented above claims that Robert White-Stevens said, if we were to hear Rachel Carson, we would all go back to the age of the caverns. We were allucinated by the new food processing additives and technologies.
How weird, then: who would have said that a few decades later I would end engaged professionally and intellectually in the development and certification of organic standards, and a relatively objective critic of the unchecked industrial agricuture and food corporations!...
One of these days I will try to find an article appeared at the end of the '60s in Esquire magazine whose subject was the question "¿is it possible to end war?" For that author war is unavoidable because it is necessary to destroy surpluss industrial production capacity. For humanity to stop consumption of war goods presently necessary to defend ourselves from enemies accross the borders, and to unite against a global threat, only two alternatives were given: * an extraterrestrial invasion, or * the need to reduce production surplusses due to the exhaustion of resources, or that somebody would convince us of the possibility of something like a threat of a global climatic catastrophe... Incredible such postulate thought of almost half a century ago!.... It looked to us as sicence fiction then. Or feverish daydreaming.
Nothing like living a few decades for reality to be seen with other eyes... Jorge Casale, Editor.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario