dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (or DDT). Carson fully anticipated the ferocious
response that came from the pesticides industry, and consequently was remarkably
careful and thorough to ensure that her scholarship was of an exceptionally high
standard (Anon., n.d.). According to the Natural Resources Defence Council
(NRDC): ‘she . . . compiled Silent Spring as one would a lawyer’s brief, with no
fewer than 55 pages of notes and a list of experts who had read and approved the
manuscript’ (NRDC, 2013). She propounded a powerful argument, which was
explicitly based on scientific evidence in an acknowledged normative frame, for
the assertion that industrialized agriculture, and especially its use of DDT and other
pesticides, was causing serious harm to birdlife and other fauna.
An axis of contestation
From the start of policy debates about ‘unsustainability’, there have been cleavages
between those who argued that achieving long-term sustainability will require radical
socioeconomic transformations, as well as regulatory and technological changes,
against others arguing that incremental regulatory and technological changes could
be sufficient. A few have steadfastly asserted that all such problems are imaginary,
but scientific evidence has repeatedly discredited such naive optimism.
Science as a (contested) tool in the contest
One of the means by which people have sought to impose their understandings
of these complex debates on as wide a consensus as possible has, however, been
by trying to control the agendas, conclusions and portrayals of the relevant sciences.
One popular tactic among those who argue that incremental change would be
sufficient to achieve ‘sustainability’ has been to suggest that technological changes
on their own could provide adequate solutions so no major social or economic
changes are required.
The publication in 1972 of The Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome
intensified debates about the unsustainability of ‘business as usual’, and served to
enrol wider ranges of actors and organizations into debates about (un)sustainability
than had previously been the case (Meadows et al., 1972). The impact of the analysis
advanced by the Club of Rome was in part achieved because the report’s con -
clusions were portrayed as if derived solely and rigorously from scientific evidence
and analysis, and therefore as reliable and definitive.
The alleged rigour and reliability of the conclusions in The Limits to Growth
were, however, contested. Freeman published an influential critique of the argu -
ments advanced in The Limits to Growth, which he characterized and discounted
as ‘Malthus with a Computer’ (Freeman, 1973). Freeman did not argue that environ -
mental issues were unimportant, or that it was a mistake to try to develop models
of the dynamics of the industrial economy in relation to global ecosystems, or to
computerize them, but rather that the model produced by the Club of Rome was
40 Erik Millstone
response that came from the pesticides industry, and consequently was remarkably
careful and thorough to ensure that her scholarship was of an exceptionally high
standard (Anon., n.d.). According to the Natural Resources Defence Council
(NRDC): ‘she . . . compiled Silent Spring as one would a lawyer’s brief, with no
fewer than 55 pages of notes and a list of experts who had read and approved the
manuscript’ (NRDC, 2013). She propounded a powerful argument, which was
explicitly based on scientific evidence in an acknowledged normative frame, for
the assertion that industrialized agriculture, and especially its use of DDT and other
pesticides, was causing serious harm to birdlife and other fauna.
An axis of contestation
From the start of policy debates about ‘unsustainability’, there have been cleavages
between those who argued that achieving long-term sustainability will require radical
socioeconomic transformations, as well as regulatory and technological changes,
against others arguing that incremental regulatory and technological changes could
be sufficient. A few have steadfastly asserted that all such problems are imaginary,
but scientific evidence has repeatedly discredited such naive optimism.
Science as a (contested) tool in the contest
One of the means by which people have sought to impose their understandings
of these complex debates on as wide a consensus as possible has, however, been
by trying to control the agendas, conclusions and portrayals of the relevant sciences.
One popular tactic among those who argue that incremental change would be
sufficient to achieve ‘sustainability’ has been to suggest that technological changes
on their own could provide adequate solutions so no major social or economic
changes are required.
The publication in 1972 of The Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome
intensified debates about the unsustainability of ‘business as usual’, and served to
enrol wider ranges of actors and organizations into debates about (un)sustainability
than had previously been the case (Meadows et al., 1972). The impact of the analysis
advanced by the Club of Rome was in part achieved because the report’s con -
clusions were portrayed as if derived solely and rigorously from scientific evidence
and analysis, and therefore as reliable and definitive.
The alleged rigour and reliability of the conclusions in The Limits to Growth
were, however, contested. Freeman published an influential critique of the argu -
ments advanced in The Limits to Growth, which he characterized and discounted
as ‘Malthus with a Computer’ (Freeman, 1973). Freeman did not argue that environ -
mental issues were unimportant, or that it was a mistake to try to develop models
of the dynamics of the industrial economy in relation to global ecosystems, or to
computerize them, but rather that the model produced by the Club of Rome was
40 Erik Millstone