Does the treatment of historical/political issues in this book represent a view that differs from the generally accepted treatment of these issues?Please Help!!!!
At the time, Carson's work did represent a radical departure from the generally accepted treatment of environmental awareness and ecological understanding. Carson's arguments about how industrial progress was trading off with environmental concern, and how approaches that did not take ecological balance into account can do harm to the ecosystem that envelops both humans and animals were absolutely new at the time. Most individuals at the time Carson wrote her work were convinced in the pursuit of economic and material growth as ranking above all. At the time of her work, federal and social agencies such as Greenpeace and the Environmental Protection Agency were not present. Over time, the impact of Carson's argument became validated by both the scientific community and the political community that began to understand the fragile condition of the environment through air pollution, rise in global temperatures, and the effects of poor ecological management. What Carson suggested is now seen as quite logical and tantamount to our survival. Her notion that the introduction of natural predators to maintain the ecological balances is something that both individuals and governments seek to pursue. Yet, at the time, when pesticides were used in such large quantity, her assertions were seen as vastly different from the generally accepted values of the time. The passage of time has validated and authenticated Carson's genius and the landmark nature of "Silent Spring."