From the archives: The "Paul Revere of ecology" sounded early warnings about the polluting effects of manmade products in 1972.
By Rose Pastore Posted 10.02.2012 at 3:03 pm 5 Comments

Municipal landfill in Falmouth, Mass. twoblueday via flickr

Barry Commoner, the scientist-activist who founded modern ecology and helped ban above-ground nuclear testing, died Sunday in Manhattan, at the age of 95. From the 1960s to the 1990s, Commoner was a leading figure of the environmental movement and a champion of the idea that everything--from pollution to war to social inequalities--was connected to everything else.

Time magazine put Commoner on its cover in February 1972, calling him the "Paul Revere of ecology." A few months later, Popular Science ran an article by Commoner that described how manmade products, including plastics, synthetic fibers, and pesticides, had upset the balance of nature. He argued that better, biologically sound technology, such as a national sewage-treatment system incorporating soil, could set things right.

Read on for an excerpt from "A Healthy Environment: The Life-or-Death Challenge."

Why concentrate on technology rather than other trouble spots? Some experts, after all, place the primary blame for our pollution problems on an expanding population, or a rise in affluence, or both. Others assume the problem to be an unfortunate, but accidental, accompaniment of the remarkable growth in science and technology and their applications in industry and agriculture.
Both of these views are far off the mark. The key indicators we use to keep track of environmental pollution have risen on the order of 200-2,000 percent in the United States since World War II. Yet our population has increased only 43 percent in the period 1946-1968. And the gross national product per capita - index of personal affluence, although not a very good one - risen only 59 percent. These increases are obviously not enough to account for the far larger increases in pollution over the same time span.
But when we look at the changes in technology and production during the postwar period, we do find changes which are large enough to match the 200-2,000 percent increases in pollution levels. Production of plastics, for example, up 1,960 percent; mercury used in chlorine and sodium hydroxide products up 3,930 percent; synthetic fibers up 5,980 percent.
What do these modern technologies, and the productive activities based on them, have in common? In their emphasis on chemistry, physics, and engineering, they have failed to recognize a vitally relevant aspect of science: the biology of the environment. It is these technologies with high biological impact that are the chief causes of the environmental crisis.
To see how this damaging process occurs, we must take a good close look at the world we live on.

See the full story in our May 1972 issue: A Healthy Environment: The Life-or-Death Challenge.

5 Comments

Link to this comment
Robot
10/02/12 at 3:10 pm

"Late Environmentalist Barry Commoner On How Biology-Based Tech Could Save The Planet"

This statement comes suggest the prior idea we are preordain doomed, and need saving.

Is our doomness already establish and we are in need of being saved?

Link to this comment
FlyBoy83
10/02/12 at 3:31 pm

Production of plastics, for example, up 1,960 percent; mercury used in chlorine and sodium hydroxide products up 3,930 percent; synthetic fibers up 5,980 percent.

Yes because they are useful in supplying to such a large population DUHHHHH, and they make people money....

STOP BREEDING YOU CONSUMER WHORES!!!!!!

Link to this comment
laurenra7
10/03/12 at 4:25 am

Is there such a thing as an environmentalist or ecologist who has a sense of perspective? One who doesn't frighten us with big numbers that mean absolutely nothing?

Take "plastics" for example. Is there any significant environmental problem resulting from plastics production increasing by 1960 percent? No. Plastics have revolutionized the modern world. Look at all the consumer products you use that have some form of plastic in them to make them lighter, more durable, less expensive. We've even figured out how to recycle them to reduce the amount ending up in land fills.

What is unforgivably overlooked is that as societies become wealthy they clean up their messes. In the U.S. we have cleaner air, cleaner water, more forests, less pollution of every kind, and more efficient use of resources than we had 50 or 100 years ago...not despite technology but BECAUSE of it.

People like Commoner are single-issue prophets of doom whose wild-eyed rants are nothing more than the fevered imaginings of extremely neurotic individuals. You would quickly dismiss the blather of apocalyptic Christian doomsayers. Apocalyptic environmentalists are no different. In fact, if you follow their philosophy to its logical conclusion, they are just modern day Luddites eschewing technological progress like some form of Original Sin.

Link to this comment
riff_raff
10/06/12 at 1:16 am

"Save the planet...."

That idea is hilarious when you think about it. The planet earth has been around for billions of years, and even if all of humanity ceased to exist, ostensibly due to our use of plastics and fossil fuels, the planet earth would still survive. In fact, the planet earth will probably still be around for millions of years after the last environmentalist has bitten the dust.



July 2013: The Future Of Flight

The incredible innovations, like drone swarms and perpetual flight, bringing aviation into the world of tomorrow. Plus: today's greatest sci-fi writers predict the future, the science behind the summer's biggest blockbusters, a Doctor Who-themed DIY 'bot, the organs you can do without, and much more.


Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email

Contributing Writers:

Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email

circ-top-header.gif
circ-cover.gif
bmxmag-ps