Results 1 – 30 of 83 Discover Book Depository’s huge selection of Michael-Lowy books online. Ecosocialismo: la alternativa radical a la catástrofe ecológica. Michael Lowy Ecosocialismo. Uploaded by Ana Inés. Ecosocialismo La Alternativa Radical a La Catastrofe Ecologica Capitalista. Copyright: © All Rights . Michael Löwy (San Paolo, 6 maggio ) è un sociologo e filosofo francese. È inoltre uno dei più grandi teorici dell’Ecosocialismo, di cui ha stilato il.
|Published (Last):||1 November 2018|
|PDF File Size:||1.3 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.27 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The book appeared in September of that year and the outcry that followed its publication forced the banning of DDT and spurred revolutionary changes in the ecossocialjsmo affecting our air, land, and water.
ECOSOCIALISMO. by Max Martínez on Prezi
It is without question one of the landmark books of the twentieth century. Leia mais Leia menos. The Edge of the Sea. Walden ou a Vida nos Bosques.
A Sand County Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River. Fale com a Editora!
Detalhes do produto Capa comum: The Discovered Writing of Rachel Carson. Her most recent book is Beatrix Potter: A Life in Nature. She lives ecossocoalismo Bethesda, MD. When Carson died barely eighteen months later in the spring ofat the age of fifty-six, she had set in motion a course of events that would result in a ban on the domestic production of DDT and the creation of a grass-roots movement demanding protection of the muchael through state and federal regulation.
It is hard to remember the cultural climate that greeted Silent Spring and to understand the fury that was launched against its quietly determined author. Carson wrote at a time of new affluence and intense social conformity.
The cold war, with its climate of suspicion and intolerance, was at its zenith. The public endowed chemists, at work in their starched white coats in remote laboratories, with almost divine wisdom. The results of their labors were gilded with the presumption of beneficence. In postwar America, science was god, and science was male.
Carson was an outsider who had never been part of the scientific establishment, first because she was a woman but also because her chosen field, biology, was held in low esteem in the nuclear age.
Her career path was nontraditional; she had no academic affiliation, no institutional voice. She deliberately wrote for the public rather than for a narrow scientific audience. For anyone else, such independence would have been an enormous detriment.
As the science establishment would discover, it was impossible to dismiss her. Rachel Carson first discovered nature in the company of her mother, a devotee of the nature study movement.
She wandered the banks of the Allegheny River in the pristine village of Springdale, Pennsylvania, just north of Pittsburgh, observing the wildlife and plants around her and particularly curious about the habits of birds.
Her childhood, though isolated by poverty and family turmoil, was not lonely. Scholarships allowed her to study at Woods Hole Biological Laboratory, where she fell in love with the sea, and at Johns Hopkins University, where she was isolated, one of a handful of women in marine biology.
She had no mentors and no money to continue in graduate school after completing an M. Along the way she worked as a laboratory assistant in the school of public health, where she was lucky enough to receive some training in experimental genetics. As employment opportunities in science dwindled, she began writing articles about the natural history of Chesapeake Bay for the Baltimore Sun. Although these were years of financial and emotional struggle, Carson realized that she did not have to choose between science and writing, that she had the talent to do both.
From childhood on, Carson was interested in the long history of the earthh, in its patterns and rhythms, its ancient seas, its evolving life forms. A fossil shell she found while digging in the hills above the Allegheny as a little girl prompted questions about the creatures of the oceans that had once covered the area.
At Johns Hopkins, an experiment with changes in the salinity of water in an eel tank prompted her to study the life cycle of those ancient fish that migrate from continental rivers to the Sargasso Sea. The desire to understand the sea from a nonhuman perspective led to her first book, Under the Sea-Wind, which featured a common sea bird, the sanderling, whose life cycle, driven by ancestral instincts, the rhythms of the tides, and the search for food, involves an arduous journey from Patagonia to the Arctic Circle.
Carson was confronted with the problem of environmental pollution at a formative period in her life. During her adolescence the second wave of the industrial revolution was turning the Pittsburgh area into the iron and steel capital of the Western world. The little town of Springdale, sandwiched between two huge coal.
Carson could not wait to escape. She observed that the captains of industry took no notice of the defilement of her hometown and no responsibility for it. In Carson landed a job as a part-time writer of radio scripts on ocean life for the federal Bureau of Fisheries in Baltimore. By night she wrote freelance articles for the Sun describing the pollution of the oyster beds of the Chesapeake by industrial runoff; she urged changes in oyster seeding and dredging practices and political regulation of the effluents pouring into the bay.
A year later Carson became a junior aquatic biologist for the Bureau of Fisheries, one of only two professional women there, and began a slow but steady advance through the ranks of the agency, which became the U. Fish and Wildlife Service in S wildlife refuge system and participating in interagency conferences on the latest developments in science and technology.
Her government responsibilities slowed the pace of her own writing. It took her ten years to synthesize the latest research on oceanography, but her perseverance paid off. She was lauded not only for her scientific expertise and synthesis of wide-ranging material but also for her lyrical, poetic voice. She understood that there was a deep need for writers who could report on and interpret the natural world. Readers around the world found comfort in her clear explanations of complex science, her description of the creation of the seas, and her obvious love of the wonders of nature.
Hers was a trusted voice in a world riddled by uncertainty. Whenever she spoke in public, however, she took notice of ominous new trends. By Carson believed that these chemicals were potentially harmful to the long-term health of the whole biota.
The pollution of the environment by the profligate use of toxic chemicals was the ultimate act of human hubris, a product of ignorance and jichael that she felt compelled to bear witness against.
Rather than protecting the public from potential harm, the government not only gave its approval to these new products but did so without establishing any mechanism of accountability. Carson questioned the moral right of government to leave its citizens unprotected from substances they could neither physically avoid nor publicly question. Such callous arrogance could end only in the destruction of the living world. Carson challenged such moral vacuity.
Human beings, she insisted, were not in control of nature but simply one of its parts: Carson argued that the kichael body was permeable and, as such, vulnerable to toxic substances in the environment. Levels of exposure could not be controlled, and scientists could not accurately predict the long-term effects of bioaccumulation in the cells or the impact of such a mixture of chemicals on human health.
In one of the most controversial parts of her book, Carson presented evidence that some human cancers were linked to pesticide exposure. That evidence and its subsequent elaboration by many other researchers continue to fuel one of the most challenging and acrimonious debates within the scientific and environmental communities. It had enormous consequences for our understanding of human health as well as our attitudes toward environmental risk.
Silent Spring proved that our bodies are not boundaries. Chemical corruption of the globe affects us from conception to death. Like the rest of nature, we are vulnerable to pesticides; we too are permeable. All forms of life are more alike than different. Inevitably this idea has changed our response to nature, to science, and to the technologies that devise and deliver contamination. Inhowever, the multimillion-dollar industrial chemical industry was not about to allow a former government editor, a female scientist without miichael Ph.
It was clear to the ecossocialusmo that Rachel Carson was a hysterical woman whose alarming view of the future could be ignored or, if necessary, suppressed. In short, Carson was a woman out of control.
She had overstepped the bounds of her gender and her science. But just in case her claims did gain lkwy audience, the industry spent a quarter of a million dollars to discredit her research and malign her ecossofialismo. In the end, the worst they could say was that she had told only one side of the story and had based her argument on unverifiable case studies. There is another, private side to the controversy over Silent Spring.
Unbeknown to her detractors in government and industry, Carson was fighting a imchael more powerful enemy than corporate outrage: She intended to disturb and disrupt, and she did so with dignity and deliberation. Communities that had been subjected to aerial spraying of pesticides against their wishes began to organize on a grass-roots level against the continuation of toxic pollution.
Legislation was readied at all governmental levels to defend against a new kind of invisible fallout. While Carson knew that one book could not alter the dynamic of the capitalist system, an environmental movement grew from her challenge, led by a public that demanded that science and government be held accountable. Carson remains an example of what one committed individual can do to change the direction of society. She was a revolutionary spokesperson for the rights of all life. She dared to speak out and confront the issue of the destruction of nature and to frame it as a debate over the quality of all life.
Rachel Carson knew before she died that her lwy had made a difference. She was honored by medals and awards, and posthumously received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in But she also knew that the issues she had raised would not be solved quickly or easily and that affluent societies are slow to sacrifice for the good of the whole. DDT is eccossocialismo in the livers of birds and fish on every oceanic island on the planet and in the breast milk of every mother.
Global contamination is a fact of modern life. Silent Spring compels each generation to reevaluate its relationship to the natural world.
We are a nation still debating the questions it raised, still unresolved as to how to act for the common good, how to achieve environmental justice. In arguing that public health and the environment, human and natural, are inseparable, Rachel Carson insisted that the role of the expert had to be limited by democratic access and must include public debate about the risks of hazardous technologies.
She knew then, as we have learned since, that scientific evidence by its very nature is incomplete and scientists will inevitably disagree on what constitutes certain proof of harm. Rachel Carson left us a legacy that not only embraces the future of life, in which she believed so fervently, but sustains the human spirit. Wonder and humility are wholesome emotions, and they do not exist side by side with a lust for destruction. They remind us that we, like all other living creatures, are part of the vast ecosystems of the earth, part of the whole stream of life.
This is a book to relish: