written by Ty Narada for Dr. Stern

Rachel had an uncommon love of nature, "Nature was her religion," her mother said. Rachel reacted normally when her religion was confronted with destruction. Rachel perceived Human tenure on Earth as only a drop in the sea of time. Humans were/are attempting to acquire mastery over an environment that had existed for billions of years before them, and would likely continue for a billion more.

Aesthetically, Rachel invested all of the "being" adjectives into her mental health and physical well being. All of her emotions were contained, reflected and expressed in/by the environment. Only that enigma, in the pursuit of "having," would launch Rachel into an environmental crusade. I believe that Rachel’s interpretation of the birds dying at the spring took the shape of a global metaphor, or; Humans would extinguish themselves next if pesticides were not controlled.

How do the chemical companies and their spokespersons represent the "having" mode of existence?

No company can make money fast enough and someone is always on the edge of an invention. Deals are made so far in advance that when a social renegade attempts to expose an oversight a.k.a. injustice, the renegade is silenced. Ordering last minute changes to a stockholders report that has already been sent to reproduction is a "no no." Petroleum companies, for instance, represent a full 1/3^rd of US GNP. If the petroleum industries were disrupted, bank loans would default. The banks would collapse faster than Black Friday and our currency would dissolve. In light of cold war concerns of Carson’s era, the government also had motive to keep her rabble rousing under wraps. For representing a capitalist country, JFK made a lot of enemies with his benevolent policies and humanitarian agendas. I had no idea that the chemical companies might have been co-sponsors of Kennedy’s assassination. If the United States was to lose it’s economic advantage, the Empire would collapse. It is evident that Carson’s antagonists perceived her as a pain-in-the-ass.

What were some of the challenges that Rachel Carson faced in her quest to expose the problem?

Women were supposed be teachers, secretaries or librarians during the 30’s-50’s. Carson had a brain; she studied biology and marine biology and became one of the first prolific feminists to achieve credibility by an academic standard on scientific issues. After she breached the sex barrier, she needed the assistance of a competent chemist to compose her hypothesis for scientific validity. Once she was theoretically literate, she became especially disliked; the equation no longer pitted Wilma Flintstone against a petulant industry, but a literate marine biologist with a watertight case against the scientific community over a life threatening issue. The scientific community impugned her work as heresy until reality proved her hypothesis. Because her predictions were accurate, inconvenienced or otherwise, the momentum of her environmental crusade resulted in the EPA.

What is the fundamental attitude toward nature expressed through the "having" mode?

It is the duty of Man to control his natural environment.

What are some of the attitudes toward people expressed through the "having" mode?

The chemical industry claimed that DDT expanded food production in 3^rd world countries; that they were providing humanitarian relief. If relieving the Earth of Humans was the intention, than they were successful.

What kinds of challenges face those who are attempting to rectify some of the injustices that result from the profit-driven global petro-chemical industry? Personal? Social? Economic? Cultural? Ecological? Etc.

People need to work – how does any government revoke operations of a company whose payroll exceeds the population of some 3^rd world countries? Not only are the employees tied up in consumer credit such as home and auto loans plus credit cards, but the companies themselves operate their own credit unions, maintain portfolios and avoid operations that contradict sound investment practices. Money, not philanthropy, is the object of capitalism. Dividends, not dying birds, is the objective of a stockholder. Pleasing the Board, not the EPA, is the objective of a CEO who draws a seven-digit salary to do whatever he’s told to do.

Until it becomes possible to revolutionize the way in which we perceive money, finance will continue to drive the Nation with all other thoughts, inventions, aesthetics and pursuits subordinated to profit. I do not deny that possibility, but with my limited comprehension of what goes on behind elitist think-tank doors, I don’t predict any amendments to our existing system. To interpret Fromm with considerable license: We have ingrained and learned behavior that has us reading scripts instead of being ourselves; we react to sensory stimulation according to prescription, rather than ‘being’ values. Non-conformist values are unethical by a ‘having’ standard. If you aren’t in business to make money, than your option is to row with the other slaves. If you never figure it out – that’s OK – there are never enough slaves.