In another case, in Canada, spraying completely backfired. Black flies were sprayed but became far more abundant after spraying than before, as was the case with aphids in England.

All in all, Carson believes chemical spraying's unintended harm far outweighs its intended benefits, and advocates for other, more natural ways of solving problems with vegetation or pests.

The dilemma that Rachel Carson presents in Silent Spring regarding the use of toxins is one that arises from virtually all major scientific discoveries. DDT was originally invented specifically as an insecticide, designed to prevent the spread of malaria. So in that sense it was initially seen as an invention that would be generally beneficial to humankind. Yet like many important scientific discoveries of the twentieth century, it soon became clear that the use of DDT had its downsides, killing not just malaria-spreading insects but also other life forms and causing considerable environmental damage in the process. Not only that, but after getting into the food chain, it caused cancer in humans and led to the development of genetic abnormalities.

Therein lies the moral dilemma. On the one hand, DDT undoubtedly saved lives, but at the same time it caused considerable damage—not just to individual human beings but to the ecosystem in general. In using this specific example to illustrate her point, Carson argues that scientific questions are by no means value-free. Each and every scientific discovery raises profound moral questions which we simply cannot and must not avoid.

I think that one of the dilemmas with which Carlson finds herself concerned is the moral approach to pesticides.  The moral problem she sees with pesticides is that something so destructive happens with so much ease.  Carson sees so much that is wrong with pesticide usage in scientific terms.  It is a condition that does so much damage to so many living organisms, both animals and humans.  The moral dilemma that Carson sees is that the use of pesticides is a simple approach to a complex problem.  Rather than people engaging in complex solutions to the problem that embraces biological intricacy, there is an ease to embrace "Neanderthal Science" that fails to understand ecological context. 

For Carson, this is a moral issue because, like the dropping of the atomic bomb, something that is so destructive can happen with so much ease.  The moral issues are evaded with the ease and simplicity with which it is embraced.  Death and destruction through pesticides are not fully grasped when its ease in use is so clear.  In this, Carson sees a moral dilemma because of its simplistic and reductive approach that fails to understand ecological complexity.  It is an easy way to embrace death and destruction without a willingness to see its implications. 

A moral dilemma is a situation in which what would seem to be necessary action contradicts the moral imperative it is designed or said to uphold. Case in point, DDT, about which Rachael Carson write in Silent Spring, was designed and used by the military to eradicate malaria causing insects in the South Pacific Islands. This was received as a great good--the saving of soldiers' lives--and the inventor, Paul Hermann Müller, was awarded a 1948 Nobel Prize. This same DDT, a full-spectrum insect killer, when used in the public domain, as opposed to military, killed insects, birds, plants and whole ecosystems and accumulated in the worldwide food chain and in human bodies, where it triggered cancers and genetic damage. This scenario represents a moral dilemma: What would seem a necessary action of agricutural pesticide control contradicts the moral imperative of saving lives, for which DDT was invented and which earned Müller a Nobel Prize.

Something designed to save human lives for the highest good of humanitarian service was, when used for crops and pestilence, destroying lives and ecological systems in wholesale quantities. The imperative questions that then arose were: Which has more value? Which is the greater good? This moral dilemma was resolved after much debate, research, loss of life and damage with the authority and backing of the United States government and other world governments by rightly defining the greater good and by disregarding the economic advantage gained from ignoring the dilemma. The dilemma was resolved by world governments banning the production and use of DDT--incidentally proving that morality can and must be legislated. 

Today we face an extension of this dilemma. Phthalates, dioxins, formaldehydes, PCBs and other plasticizers, surfactants, detergents and other volatile organic compounds, which are found in foods, adhesives, carpets, counter tops, school desks, office furniture, make up, hair grooming products, synthetic perfumes, papers, clothing, sheets, the list is unending, are adding a chemical body burden to all people, even infants who ingest dioxins from foods handles by their mothers' fingers. These chemicals are being linked to obesity, Lupus, asthma, ADHD and other diseases. The present moral dilemma related to these chemicals is the same dilemma as Carson uncovered in Silent Spring and is most apparent in regard to recycled paper, which was meant to be a valued good to individuals and to the planet. Recycled paper has high concentrations of phthalates and dioxins because of the cleansing and purifying processes it goes through. Recycled paper, which has been rejected by industry leaders for use as an alternative "green" building material because of its unacceptably high toxic chemical content, is used to package our foods and these volatile organic compounds are not stable but transfer into our foods. Recycled papers make it clearly apparent what our present day chemical moral dilemma is.