Jun 11, 2026 · 1 hr 13 min · 11 segments
Is modern environmentalism anti-progress? This week, Jerusalem Demsas and Matthew Yglesias read Rachel Carson's *Silent Spring* – the book that launched the modern environmental movement. Jerusalem…
Jerusalem DemsasHost
Matthew YglesiasHost
... about these people." And it's in there, and then, but m- most of the book is actually pretty boring.
It's a lot of very specific information about specific instances in which insecticide was sprayed in some community, and then there was some negative consequences of spraying the insecticide.
I mean, the book, it's the s- um, as Matt says, like, you know, it, it opens up with this sort of, like, fable about this, like, idyllic town, and, um, that chapter sort of ends, and this is also the, um, way that her famous New Yorker piece also starts off, which is what actually really I think most people probably read.
But, like, the entire book is really, like, a scientist's, like, piece-by-piece case study of, like, what she is witnessing, and she's a scientist, so that makes sense.
But the way that people talk about Silent Spring now, I mean, even, like, again, this cover, "The classic that launched the modern environ-," or the, or the, "The environmental movement," I mean, I really expected it to be sort of this diatribe against modernity and, like, these really far-out-there claims, but in reality, it just seems, like, largely correct, a bunch of, like, statements that follow each other that are all difficult to really grapple with.
... um, she, the, the story she tells, which I, I mean, I think is historically correct, is that there was a lot of development in the chemical industry associated with the world wars.
Um, and then after the wars, there was a push to find civilian uses for these kinds of chemicals, and one of the main things that they discovered was that certain, uh, neurotoxic agents that were, you know, related to things that were used in chemical warfare in World War I, uh, could be used in sort of attenuated forms or lower doses to kill insects.
Uh, because insects are small, uh, compared to mammals, they have, um, they, like, absorb, um, material, uh, fr- from the environment through their skin, things like that.
Um, and the point of the book, I guess, is that these small doses of insecticide damage birds, mammals, and humans downstream in ways that are not being accounted for correctly by the industry, the farmers, uh, and government officials.
And I think the context here is just that there actually really wasn't widespread awareness that there was potential damage, um, s- like, side effects of widespread spray.
Like, right now, I'm kind of like, I went into this book sort of like, "Well, yeah, of course, duh, like, there might be, like, some knock-on effects of spraying shit into the environment." But, like, my awareness of that is largely downstream of, like, work by Carson to, like, [laughs] point out that this was the case.
... about these people." And it's in there, and then, but m- most of the book is actually pretty boring.
It's a lot of very specific information about specific instances in which insecticide was sprayed in some community, and then there was some negative consequences of spraying the insecticide.
I mean, the book, it's the s- um, as Matt says, like, you know, it, it opens up with this sort of, like, fable about this, like, idyllic town, and, um, that chapter sort of ends, and this is also the, um, way that her famous New Yorker piece also starts off, which is what actually really I think most people probably read.
But, like, the entire book is really, like, a scientist's, like, piece-by-piece case study of, like, what she is witnessing, and she's a scientist, so that makes sense.
But the way that people talk about Silent Spring now, I mean, even, like, again, this cover, "The classic that launched the modern environ-," or the, or the, "The environmental movement," I mean, I really expected it to be sort of this diatribe against modernity and, like, these really far-out-there claims, but in reality, it just seems, like, largely correct, a bunch of, like, statements that follow each other that are all difficult to really grapple with.
... um, she, the, the story she tells, which I, I mean, I think is historically correct, is that there was a lot of development in the chemical industry associated with the world wars.
Um, and then after the wars, there was a push to find civilian uses for these kinds of chemicals, and one of the main things that they discovered was that certain, uh, neurotoxic agents that were, you know, related to things that were used in chemical warfare in World War I, uh, could be used in sort of attenuated forms or lower doses to kill insects.
Uh, because insects are small, uh, compared to mammals, they have, um, they, like, absorb, um, material, uh, fr- from the environment through their skin, things like that.
Um, and the point of the book, I guess, is that these small doses of insecticide damage birds, mammals, and humans downstream in ways that are not being accounted for correctly by the industry, the farmers, uh, and government officials.
And I think the context here is just that there actually really wasn't widespread awareness that there was potential damage, um, s- like, side effects of widespread spray.
Like, right now, I'm kind of like, I went into this book sort of like, "Well, yeah, of course, duh, like, there might be, like, some knock-on effects of spraying shit into the environment." But, like, my awareness of that is largely downstream of, like, work by Carson to, like, [laughs] point out that this was the case.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.