In Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (the controversial classic that launched the environmental movement originally published in The New Yorker as a serial in June 1962 and then as a full-length nonfiction novel in September of the same year by Houghton Mifflin), she highlights the dangers of industrialization and the negative impacts it can have on the environment and human health. She wrote a statement that “It is also an era dominated by industry, in which the right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged.” She argues that the pursuit of profit often takes precedence over the well-being of the planet and its inhabitants. As I read through this book, I have realized that I often have the most interesting disagreements with myself, since I frequently question the credibility of my own perceived values. Although I am a supporter of capitalism and agree with the tactics of turning a profit, the book's primary argument has put me in a state of self-conflict. I share her moral stance that the utilization of chemical-based synthetic pesticides like Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) not only poses a threat to the environment but also increases the risk of cancer in humans. As she explained in the first chapter, about a “strange blight” altering the natural beauty of an ecosystem full of living organisms. 

However, I would like to draw attention to that specific passage in her work where she discusses the pesticide's capacity to virtually alter genetic composition. In particular, Carson states in her opening chapter:

Some would-be architects of our future look toward a time when it will be possible to alter the human germ plasm by design. But we may easily be doing so now by inadvertence, for many chemicals, like radiation, bring about gene mutations. It is ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray.

As I was trying to comprehend, I found myself getting puzzled and eventually started questioning her integrity. Radiation is not a chemical, but some chemicals can emit radiation and therefore may affect our genetic makeup by causing mutations. It is curious whether the error is due to a lack of proofreading or an understanding of chemistry fundamentals. It is crucial to have a clear and well-supported statement, especially when trying to highlight an irony that affects our genetic makeup due to inadvertent actions. This is especially true for Carson, who is not only a writer held in high esteem but also a scientist with established integrity in her community. In her case, it is mandatory to be meticulous in word choice.

Disregarding that, I must disagree with her original quote. I believe that generating profit in a strict, free-market economy should be the primary objective of a business and is necessary for its growth and sustainability. Without profit, a business cannot invest in research and development, expand its operations, or offer new products and services. Ayn Rand, a philosopher throughout the mid-1900s, credited with the controversial formulation of Objectivism, comments in an interview with James McConnell (www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeaAC832gG4) reflecting upon the publication of For the New Intellectual:

The businessman is the man who has to use his mind to deal with reality, to study facts, to produce material goods. He is the man who serves as the transmission belt of the discoveries of science and carries the products of science to all levels of society. He is the one who takes the inventions of a theoretical scientist or of an inventor, and transforms them into useful products, and putting them into mass production, makes them available to all levels of society. The businessman is the man who has achieved the enormous, historically miraculous rise in the standard of living of mankind during the 19th century.

It is intriguing to observe a population that lacks an understanding of what I believe to be fundamental knowledge and fundamental economic principles. Yet, I am currently aware of the stigma and the popular opinion regarding billionaires (businessmen) especially when Rand states they are the “most hated, blamed, denounced men” and the statistics and politics involved, as reported by Andrew Daniller (pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/07/28/americans-views-about-billionaires-have-grown-somewhat-more-negative-since-2020/)

 for the Pew Research Center: “Today, half of adults under 30 say the fact that some people have fortunes of a billion dollars or more is bad for the U.S., up from 39% last year… [And] Within each party, adults under 30 are more likely than older people to have negative views about the presence of people with billion-dollar fortunes.” However, while the statistic's former composition is false and littered with ignorance, it is also not a coincidence for the latter. Universities today [indeed] foster a corrupt mindset that stifles and paralyzes the minds of young people. These institutions are dominated by the hatred of alternative ideologies, achievement, and the individual as well as the worship of blind emotions and self-sacrifice (youtube.com/shorts/wW4ItV8ov-A). While untruthful and ignorant toward the aspect that billionaires have a negative impact on the U.S., it is however, common knowledge that the majority of the billionaires are business people of major corporations (Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., etc.) and in conjunction, provided by the U.S. Department of State, “Large businesses are important to the overall economy because they tend to have more financial resources than small firms to conduct research and develop new goods.” (usa.usembassy.de/etexts/oecon/chap4.htm#:~:text=Large%20businesses%20are%20important%20to,better%20health%20and%20retirement%20benefits)

It is known that all business owners are motivated by profit; this is a basic principle in a free market (free enterprise), being one of the main producers of economic activity. When a company is created, it establishes jobs and aids in the formulation of an economy. An entrepreneur gathers and uses the 3 basic factors of production: land, referring to national resources; labor, the work that goes into production; and capital, the tools and buildings used to produce goods or services for profit. The relationship between these factors is straightforward: the land cannot be worked without labor, and laborers cannot be successful without equipment. However, when the government imposes a national minimum wage, it can lead to higher unemployment rates because companies may not be able to afford the additional workers.

To comprehend and appropriately position its products, a business must grasp its whole costs. Corporations and small businesses, which account for 44% of the GDP of the United States, can prosper and improve living standards if they are profitable. But if they are not profitable, businesses cannot continue, and eventually falter and close. Thus, assuming the worst, the primary economic system would collapse completely, leading to massive unemployment and anarchy if all of the large companies with their substantial cash stockpiles decided to close.

I must point out a question that boggles my mind occasionally: If the company one works for and earns a living from didn't exist, where would people be? Therefore, it is against profitable interest to destroy your own company’s jobs. Specifically, there are two main reasons a company might use DDT or any form of present-day destructive chemical: to produce a less workable environment for the company to use or to create more jobs for the wrong companies. You cannot generalize capitalism to a single company. If one were to do that, it would produce a negative opinion of the economic system and cause those to abandon it with hate as a motive. As a result, I find it ironic that some complain of corrupt leadership and exploitation, when in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), children are under actual exploitation with extreme conditions, working in artisanal mining of cobalt and (along with adults as well) breathing in the toxic fumes, for the uncoincidental international sale of it to major corporations. Economists contend that, despite its extreme nature, it is their only meaningful activity since they have no other options in that regard. In the event that they lacked that, what precisely should they do? Many may argue the simple conclusion of schooling, but that is not an option considering DRC is among the top 5 poorest nations on the globe. 

In a number of public announcements, big businesses like Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, and Tesla have declared that they are either actively looking for alternative supply chains for this mineral or are not utilizing cobalt in their goods at this time (opiniojuris.org/2020/01/13/the-mighty-apple-google-tesla-dell-and-microsoft-in-the-dock-a-look-at-the-child-labour-lawsuit/). Both the creation of lithium-ion batteries, which are used in electric vehicles and the fabrication of electronics frequently involve the use of cobalt. There is a rising concern about the ethical difficulties surrounding the extraction and supply chain of cobalt, as seen by these corporations' efforts to decrease their reliance on the metal. In addition, this suggests that these companies' perspectives on ethical and sustainable material procurement are changing. One significant development in the industry is the action being taken by these powerful and sizable corporations to solve these problems. It also highlights that the path toward greater transparency and accountability is already being trekked. (amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/17/tech/apple-microsoft-tesla-dell-congo-cobalt-mining/index.html)

Effective management, however, is crucial in the American system, particularly in light of the huge changes in the workplace and business practices brought about by the Industrial Revolution, which increased productivity. Even while certain managers in the 19th century had unpleasant work environments and there were cases of corruption, it is unfair to assume that all managers, especially in the present era, were corrupt. If someone feels exploited or sees corruption in their workplace, they always have the option to leave. But perhaps they stay because they have no other options or are motivated, like many businessmen, by the desire to make money.  I find it intriguing when those who fall into the 30% statistic express their desire to have a net worth of over one million, but are content with not branching out to billionaire status.

Furthermore, after reading, while I respect the dedication to her practice, I partly disagree with Carson's argument (a documentation of the many harmful effects pesticides–DDT–have on bird populations) and find it very anecdotal and circumstantial. A side that is also taken by Robert Zubrin in an article from The New Atlantis (www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-truth-about-ddt-and-silent-spring#_ftn17), with the added word: “unfounded” when regarding her evidence, stating “In fact, during the period of widespread DDT use preceding the publication of Silent Spring, bird populations in the United States increased significantly, probably as a result of the pesticide’s suppression of their insect disease vectors and parasites.” 

Be that as it may, I intend to explicitly point out that in an economy, there can be pros and cons concerning controversial topics (which this is no doubt one), and that there cannot be a 100% correct side; each side has its benefits that also come with faults. I have noticed that as the world continues to advance, the different sides of an argument oftentimes become close-minded; but when it comes to my ideals, I have developed a mentality that is quick to detect any form of radical bigotry, and therefore always tread with caution.