Donate!

Who Killed Cock Robin?

An Earth Day 2000 Address by Paul Lee

The Ballad of Rachel Carson
and the Historical Origins of
the Environmental Crisis and
Earth Day

An Earth Day, 2000, Talk, by Paul A. Lee, PhD

In the summer of l969, I took a wilderness canoe trip with Gaylord Nelson, the Senator from Wisconsin. It was part of Senator Nelson’s effort to pass a Wild Rivers’ Bill to save some of the waters of Northern Wisconsin. I should have told him about our organic garden at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and our remarkable gardener–Alan Chadwick–whom E. F. Schumacher called “the world’s greatest living gardener”, because, when months later I saw the Senator announce Earth Day on the Today Show, I thought, oh boy, our garden has prepared the way.

And, indeed, it had. When Earth Day arrived we were ready for it, as though we had staked out a small space of a few acres to reaffirm the integrity of organic nature within the very stronghold of those responsible for undermining it. I was asked to give a talk at University of California/Berkeley and Senator Nelson spoke from the same podium the next day. I helped organize the Earth Day celebration in Santa Cruz and I remember getting a Rauschenberg Earth Day poster which someone eventually pinched from my office wall. The event marked an historic moment when countless Americans stopped for a weekend and thought about the unforeseen consequences of industrial society and its ravaging effect on the environment, on organic nature, on the whole earth. I was teaching philosophy at University of California Santa Cruz and I thought of Earth Day as the end of Existentialism, the philosophical movement that, among other things, protested industrial society and the predicament of human existence in it. Now we had a new beginning. It was possible to re-affirm the integrity of organic nature and to celebrate the earth as our home instead of our dump. The re-affirmation of the goodness of creation was implied when we planted our garden in this best of all possible worlds.

Rachel Carson had sung the Ballad of Cock Robin in her Silent Spring in the early 60’s, bringing to the attention of Americans the unforeseen consequences of pesticide use (DDT) on robin and other bird populations. Man Against the Earth, had been an early title. In her Scripps College Commencement Address, she said: “Man has long talked somewhat arrogantly about the conquest of nature”….”now he has the power to achieve his boast. It is our misfortune–it may well be our final tragedy–that this power has not been tempered with wisdom, but has been marked by irresponsibility; that there is all too little awareness that man is part of nature, and that the price of conquest may well be the destruction of man himself.”

When she completed the manuscript to Silent Spring she said: “and last night the thoughts of all the birds and other creatures and all the loveliness that is in nature came to me with such a surge of deep happiness, that now I had done what I could–I had been able to complete it–now it had its own life.”

I used the Ballad of Cock Robin, sung by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring, as a way of characterizing the intellectual sources for thinking about the environmental crisis. Three terms are employed: “Physicalism,” the predominant ideological trend of modern science and the Sparrow in the Ballad; “Vitalism,” the Cock Robin in the Ballad, defeated by Physicalism as a sentimental defense of the integrity of organic nature or the “life force,” and “Existentialism,” which, it occurred to me, could be seen as the consequence of the defeat of Vitalism, as the Ballad calls the Dove: Chief Mourner.

The dates make the construction plausible. Physicalism defeated Vitalism in l828 with the artificial synthesis of urea. Existentialism began in l841-42 in the Berlin Lectures of Friedrich Schelling in his rejection of Hegel. It was a great class. Jacob Burckhardt, the historian of the Italian Renaissance; Bakunin, the anarchist; Engels, the colleague of Marx, and Soren Kierkegaard, my special favorite, were in attendance. Kierkegaard was disappointed and went back to Copenhagen and carried through the Existential protest in a radical way, although they were all mourners. They mourned the fate of human existence in industrial society. Estrangement, alienation, thingification, daylight saving time on the assembly line, as though a second reality had developed, robbing people of their humanity, a con job, Biedermeier half truths, the death of God, the hollow reverb of the soul before it disappeared into the obtuse obscurity of anonymity. Kafka’s door closing on the entrance to the Law. Waiting For Godot. Subject-object sat on a wall, subject-object had a great fall and all the King’s horses and all the King’s men, could not put subject-object together again.

Our student garden at UCSC was only a few acres, but by l970 it was flourishing as a tribute to the principle of plenitude of Chadwick’s production methods–the French Intensive, the food production system developed around Paris and the Biodynamic, an esoteric form of organic food production. He kept the latter a secret until after Earth Day because he knew it was a force-fit on a hostile campus, a form of Vitalism with a vengeance, developed by Rudolf Steiner, whose center, at Dornach, Switzerland, was a watershed for the occult and mystical tradition, with Goethe celebrated in his central building of his own design known as the Goetheanum. The story has it that Chadwick’s mother was an Anthroposophist and Alan met him on a visit to their family estate–Pudleston–where Steiner gave him some lessons in raspberry production.

The scientists on the campus were already annoyed about “organic”. They thought it was just another hippie plot to discredit the reputation of the new campus where everyone dropped acid and smoked pot in the redwoods. They would have freaked out over Chadwick’s Steiner connection, a clairvoyant, who looked like a pinched version of Alfred E. Newman of Mad Comics : “Me worry?” It took a while, but I finally developed the nerve to read about Steiner and dip into his writings, late at night, with a flashlight under the covers. I was teaching at Crown College, (which was devoted to the natural sciences,) and one evening at a colleague’s home, while stepping it off to the dining room, a chemist said to me: “Do you know the garden has done more to ruin the cause of science than anything else on this campus?” What?…”By the way…..” What was he talking about? It was an “uh oh” experience.

I came to realize I was caught between Chadwick, the organic gardener, with roots back through Steiner to Goethe representing the Vitalist tradition and Kenneth Thimann, my boss, the Provost of Crown College, an internationally renowned Physicalist botanist, who was strictly scientific, experimental laboratory, all the way, his way or the highway, with roots back to Newton and Galileo. Vitalism and Physicalism was perfectly personified in Chadwick and Thimann, the organic gardener and the experimental laboratory botanist. They were somewhat new terms to me, representing paradigms, as Kuhn would have or should have called them, in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the book that made a big splash at the time. His strictly formalistic analysis assumes the Vitalist demise and the Physicalist victory without even mentioning them as illustrative cases of the revolution. Physicalism was the revolutionary paradigm that supplanted Vitalism in the development of the sciences in the mid-l9th century. The structure of the scientific revolution was a Physicalist Revolution, pure and simple, at the expense of everything Vitalist, a term of contempt in the mind of the victorious Physicalist.

“The new cosmos–a complex of matter and forces proceeding mechanically from spiral nebula to everlasting ice–took such a firm hold on the imagination of Europe that labels like spiritualism, spiritualist, spiritualistic, were employed to describe those who believed it was anything more, and even Vitalism and Vitalist to distinguish those who held that life, as such, had any purpose or significance.” Owen Barfield: History of English Words

The defeat of Vitalism and the victory of Physicalism as the reductionist trend in modern science, reducing everything to physical and chemical forces, turned on a simple experiment that was credited with the defeat–the artificial synthesis of urea. Everyone who knows me knows the date–l828. I was thrilled when I stumbled on it. I thought: “urea, I found it”–the historical origins of the environmental crisis! Friedrich Woehler did it. He is known as the Father of Organic Chemistry where the word “organic” is identified with artificial synthesis, thereby undermining the argument in behalf of the integrity of organic nature and its independent distinction from inorganic nature–Vitalism. The organic was collapsed into the inorganic when Woehler heated up ammonium cyanate and got organic urea. You didn’t need a kidney anymore to get synthetic urea!  You have to realize what a stupendous development this was that organic nature could be bracketed, in effect, and copied, whatever the chemical composition turned out to be, mimicked, with inorganic nature. On the level of chemicals they were considered to be identical—natural and synthetic; organic and artificial; no difference. A simple product of the experimental laboratory supplanted and replaced organic nature, in this case, a kidney in the making of urea. The consequences are stunning in its symbolic significance given the products of synthetic urea. You get artificial fertilizer (synthetic urea is a high nitrogen) and plastics (poly-ure-thane). Plastic soil in which to grow plastic food for plastic people. The artificial and synthetic culture of industrial society as a world above the given world of nature had achieved its conquest of organic nature.

Take the urea experiment as the symbolic experiment of the rise and triumph of industrial society thanks to better living through chemistry and the products of the experimental laboratory. Monsanto is just around the corner with Agent Orange and Roundup. DDT is on the way. You know the list once the outlines of the late stage of the self-destruction of industrial society come into focus with Earth Day.

From then on “organic” meant plastics–well, anyhow, artificial synthesis. Get it? Might as well start calling factories plants. “Where you going today, honey?” “Oh, down to the plant.”

“For the chemistry of the living organism is fundamentally identical with that of the laboratory and the factory.” J. Loeb

Well, if they can take an inch, there goes a mile and eventually the whole earth. The integrity of organic nature was undermined as a consequence of the refutation of Vitalism. Take my word for it. The organic was collapsed into the inorganic through artificial synthesis, because, after all, when you get down to it, things are just chemicals and physical forces in simple or complicated combinations.

And they wanted to get down to it–the development of industrial society as a world above the given world of nature–better living through chemistry–and the unending promises of the experimental lab, right down to the human genome. Physicalistic Science took over what counts for knowledge, and I mean with a vengeance. All Vitalist sympathies were proscribed. There were holdouts. We had Bergson extolling elan vital in the salons of Paris, and Albert Scweitzer saying the hell with it and going to darkest Africa to think about “the reverence for life”; it was a short list.

Frank Lloyd Wright extolled organic architecture–you could be a Vitalist and wear a floppy ascot tie and a cape and act smart if you wanted to be a megalomaniac and think you were the greatest architect who ever lived. It was the perogative of artists. Mr. Rodale started a publishing company, in Emmaus, Pennsylvania, around the old meaning of organic, and he carried the torch. You’ve got to give him some credit.

So here was Chadwick representing a failed and buried Vitalist tradition, sneaking onto the campus of the Physicalist stronghold like a Trojan Horse, only instead of Achilles’ lance, he had a Bulldog spade. He dug through the crusted hardpan of the campus and developed one of the most fertile and productive gardens in the world. I’ll never forget going up there at dawn and picking flowers with all the lovely coeds; I’ll never forget them, either. They were halcyon days.

We took Goethe’s motto for his Italian Journey as our own–Et in Arcadia Ego, and “I am in Arcadia,” that Arcadian garden, an old European affirmation of the goodness and sweetness of life from the point of view of the grave. Poussin painted it–The Arcadian Shepherds–four youths looking at the motto on a tomb in an overgrown garden. Let our garden be our grave, we said. There is a notion that gardens had their origin on graves.

I was guided back to Goethe by Steiner, and especially his book: Goethe the Scientist. I found out that Goethe, the Vitalist, had tried to refute Newton, the Physicalist, in his optics, or theory of color. Goethe carried out extensive experiments trying to show the vital meaning of color, (call it the spiritual meaning of color–“green, green, I want you green”) against the dead reduction of color of Newton’s Physicalism. And Goethe turned to botany in his opposition to physics, knowing it was an endangered (Vitalist) science, about to be subordinated in the experimental lab to physics and chemistry.

Goethe in despair over his anticipation of the triumph of industrial society and the end of Old European culture dropped out one day and walked to Padua, what came to be known as his Italian Journey. Padua was site of the oldest botanical garden in the Western world (Pisa disputes this) and there he saw a plant (or the Italians thought he did)–a palm, Chaemerops humilis, and the Italians renamed it “Goethe’s Palm”, the urplant, a typically German idea about the form of plants. It was metaphysical. He meant something like the vital root of vital roots. The Italians were so honored by Goethe’s visit to their old garden that they built a glass case to enshrine the palm. I went to the garden in l976 with my pal, Rolf Von Eckartsberg, and thought, well, what do you know, the vital root of existence squirreled away under glass to wait out the rise, triumph and fall of industrial society now in its late stage of self-destruction as a world above the given world of nature.

In terms of what counted for knowledge, there was no place for any of this at my University. Chadwick was thought to be a nut because he planted by the moon although the Chancellor defended him because the Chancellor was a farmboy whose father planted by the moon. That was a lucky break. Chadwick placed a box of the most exquisite produce at his door every week as an offering for his support.

There are a number of steps I have enumerated for myself after finding the key in l828 and the defeat of Vitalism. This summary of the history of ideas and movements is simply to indicate the character of the Physicalist trend after l828 and its ever narrower confines, as it eliminates features of life and substitutes artificial and synthetic for organic:

1. Helmholtz and the law of the conservation of energy and his two students, Brucke and DuBois-Reymond, who formulated the Physicalist Oath, taken in blood, in order to smoke out any closet Vitalists; Brucke was the teacher of Freud and it was in his lab that Freud formulated his early theory of consciousness as a “qualitative leap in the neurone” while dissecting the nervous system of a certain order of fish (was the qualitative leap a somersault?)

2. The Vienna Circle under Carnap and Logical Positivism, the philosophy of Physicalism, and their call for the “elimination of metaphysics” which included, when you throw the baby out with the bathwater, ethics, aesthetics, religious language, etc., anything that eluded confirmation under experimental laboratory protocols and the strictures of mathematical logic.

3. Reductive behaviorism and the elimination of consciousness (not even Freud’s definition satisfied the nonsense test)–Pavlov to Skinner and positive and negative reinforcement (turn up the heat in the Skinner Box).

4. Cybernetics, or artificial intelligence and the computer revolution (can machines think?), where simulation rules the day.

5. Synthetic psychosis or synthetic mysticism with psychedelics; I helped coin the term, I’m ashamed to say, after advocates of psychotomimetic and mysticomimetic struggled over the meaning of hallucination which they failed to define. Hey, at least it brought consciousness back to the table.

Each of these movements need to be fully characterized in order to fill out the point, the point being the nails they represent in securing the coffin lid on the dead corpse of Vitalism. The theme of “elimination” and “synthetic” and “artificial” and how it is carried through is all part of a reductionist self-destructive syndrome it is our historical fate to suffer. My favorite account of this trend, begun by Galileo in the period of the Renaissance, is by Hans Jonas, who hit the high notes of formulation just right. He knew how to put it:

“From the physical sciences there spread over the conception of all existence an ontology whose model entity is pure matter, stripped of all features of life. … The tremendously enlarged universe of modern cosmology is conceived as a field of inanimate masses and forces which operate according to the laws of inertia and of quantitative distribution in space. This denuded substratum of all reality could only be arrived at through a progressive expurgation of vital features from the physical record and through strict abstention from projecting into its image our own felt aliveness. In this process the ban on anthropomorphism was extended to zoomorphism in general. What remained is the residue of the reduction toward the properties of mere extension which submit to measurement and hence to mathematics. These properties alone satisfy the requirements of what is now called exact knowledge: and representing the only knowable aspect of nature they, by a tempting substitution, came to be regarded as its essential aspect too: and if this, then as the only real in reality. This means that the lifeless has become the knowable par excellence and is for that reason also considered the true and only foundation of reality. It is the “natural” as well as the original state of things. Not only in terms of relative quantity but also in terms of ontological genuineness, nonlife is the rule, life the puzzling exception in physical existence.”

Here’s what Steiner has to say in his Riddles of Philosophy:

“An example that shows how the results of natural science influenced the conception of the world is given in Woehler’s discovery of l828. This scientist succeeded in producing a substance synthetically outside the living organism that had previously only been known to be formed by an organ. This experiment seemed to supply the proof that the former belief–material compounds could only be formed under the influence of a special vital force contained in the organ was incorrect. If it was possible to produce such compounds outside the living body, then one could draw the conclusion that the organism was also working only with the forces with which chemistry deals. The thought arose for the materialists that if the living organism does not need a special life force to produce what formerly had been attributed to such a force, why should this organism then need special spiritual energies in order to produce the processes to which mental experiences are bound?”

I laughed out loud and then winced when I read the famous Russian biologist, Oparin’s, definition of life: “the qualification of dead matter.” Life, for Physicalists, had become a subtle hoax of matter, a ludibrium materiae.

My favorite episode in this Physicalist takeover is Fermi’s worry about destroying the universe in the smashing of the atom, in a squash (sic!) court at the University of Chicago. He did the math and figured, oh well, it’s worth the chance, let’s do it. The Fermi Team went ahead with it, although they had a suicide squad standing by outfitted in special suits. Again, when they blew the bomb, Fermi worried about igniting the nitrogen in the atmosphere. The Wayward Reaction. There is substantial reason to believe that in unforeseen ways, the wayward reaction happened, anyhow. Oppenheimer said: “We have seen death.”

We have been suffering the Wayward Reaction ever since. Earth Day gave us a little Neo-Vitalist blip of hope on the radar screen of the late stage of the self-destruction of industrial society. Chadwick symbolized grounds for hope in our garden of a kind of second chance, when no one thought there was one. Hope against hope. Hope can be too strong. Hope can break the heart.

In my worst moments I think of the environmental movement as “the death rattle” of defeated Vitalism. The corpse of defeated Vitalism was laid to rest, beginning in l828, and all the successive blows I have enumerated were supposed to nail down the coffin lid. But the coffin came unglued, much to everyone’s surprise, and the corpse sat up and we get this, what?, thirty, fifty, seventy-five year, death rattle, known as the Environmental Movement? It took us by surprise, Earth Day did. It was a seizure, even though we were ready for it in our secret biodynamic garden at a university in California overlooking Monterey Bay, where we replanted the vital root of existence.

I had a big insight when I went back into the Greek meanings of words at the outset of Western culture and thought about their transformation. How could the mystery of death, the great imponderable in the ancient world, turn into the mystery of life in the modern world–the reverse of imponderables? This is the theme of Jonas’ first chapter in the Phenomenon of Life. He indicates the shift in the time of Galileo, probably following Husserl, one of the great critics of Physicalism, who clearly identifies Galileo with the mathematization of nature.. Galileo throws the mathematical net over nature and mathematical physics becomes the principle science of sciences upon which the other sciences are grounded, determining what counts for knowledge. It is an immense shift from the ancient view to the modern view.

The Greek word for nature is physis. It means what grows, what is best called a plantation. Watch what happens. It goes to physic, which I like as an herbal tonic (especially if you need to you- know -what), and then it goes to physics, dead things in space, with Galileo and the mathematization of nature when mathematical physics took over from botany and set the stage for chemistry. So much for nature.

Now take the Greek word hyle, meaning forest, the background for physis. It goes to mater ( not too bad), what’s the matter, as in maternal, as in mother nature, as in materia medica, the professional practise of medicinal herbs, the vital roots of health care, and then to materialism, the dead stuff underlying the dead things in space.

“Yet there is one word that Aristotle could not avoid

using when he spoke about the unspeakable–hyle. He

is the first to give the word its philosophical meaning

of “matter.” But hyle in Greek does not originally mean

matter, it means forest. Let us repeat that: hyle is the

Greek word for forest. The cognate of hyle in Latin is silva.

The archaic Latin word was sylua, phonetically close to hyle.

It is strange that the Romans should have translated the

Aristotelian hyle with the word materia when the Latin

language possessed such a cognate. But even the word

materia did not stray very far from the forests. Materia

means wood–the usable wood of a tree as opposed to its

bark, fruit, sap, etc. And materia has the same root–yes, root–as the word for mater, or mother.”

Forests: The Shadow of Civilization, by Robert Pogue Harrison

I entered the herbal industry as a second career after the university and came to realize that the botanical basis of health care, herbs, were supplanted by synthetic drugs (for the reasons adumbrated above). Herbs were identified with refuted and rejected Vitalism. Earth Day and the re-affirmation of the integrity of organic nature was partly responsible for the recovery of medicinal herbs in what I call the herb renaissance.

Here’s what one of my favorites, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, has to say about this issue in an article: “Liturgical Thinking”:

“Physis means “plantation” in Greek; Plato called God a planter or physis ! The word comes from a verb which means “living growth”! Physics, however, in the Renaissance, became what it is today: the science of dead matter. For the first time in the history of thought, dead matter was held to have preceded living growth. In a living universe, too, we may have to cope with corpses. But the mechanical “natural science” after l500 tried to explain life out of its corpses by making nature primarily a concept of dead mass in space! Only recently have we discovered that the term “nature” between l500 and l900 was used in a sense or with an accent unheard in any other epoch: mass, quantity, space, i.e., dead things, filled the foreground of scientific thought. Physics was held to explain chemistry, chemistry biology, biology psychology, psychology philosophy. Dead things were to explain the living; personality by adrenalin in the glands.”

Jonas again:

“Modern thought which began with the Renaissance is placed in exactly the opposite theoretic situation (from the ancient world where death is the riddle). Death is the natural thing, life the problem.” “To take life as a problem is here to acknowledge its strangeness in the mechanical world which is the world; to explain it is–in this climate of a universal ontology of death–to negate it by making it one of the possible variants of the lifeless. Such a negation is the mechanistic theory of the organism…. Vitalistic monism is replaced by mechanistic monism, in whose rules of evidence the standard of life is exchanged for that of death.”

Physicalism, of course, is under attack, not least of all by the new physics, chaos math, fuzzy logic, certain aspects of socio-biology and all of the neo-Vitalist features of some of the sciences, such as immune memory in immunology. Arthur Koestler wrote about it in his last book, Janus, A Summing Up, before he and his wife committed suicide. I read it as if he had written it for me. He knew what was going down. No one checked his Vitalist sympathies. Other relevant sources are: Michael Polanyi, in Personal Knowledge ; F. A. von Hayek, in his account of the rise of the French engineer as a new type of human being; Armytage in his Rise of the Technocrat; Tillich, in his anti-industrial society writings (from whom I picked up my mantra on the late stage of the self-destruction of industrial society); Erich Heller in The Disinherited Mind.; Eric Voegelin, in all of his writings, but, most pointedly, in his essay in Social Research: “The Origins of Scientism.” There are many witnesses, many mourners.

Here’s Tillich:

“I would say the most universal expression of the demonic today is a split between the control of nature by man, and the fate of man to fall under the control of the product of his control. He produces, and then he falls under the power of what he has produced, the whole system of industrial existence. It has liberated him, it has given him contgrol over nature and now it puts him into a servitude in which he loses more and more his being, his person. This form of dehumanization was what we fought against in Germany; we must continue this fight now on a much larger basis.”

It was Rachel Carson who continued the fight on a much larger basis when she sang the Ballad of Cock Robin in Silent Spring and bemoaned the effect of DDT on robin populations. It was the wakeup call that lead to Earth Day. In reading a biography of Rachel Carson last summer I was stunned to find out that Biodynamic gardening was associated with the origin of Carson’s interest in DDT. Marjorie Spock, Dr. Spock’s sister, had gone to study biodynamic gardening in Dornach at the Steiner Goetheanum and came back and started a biodynamic garden with Mary (Polly) Richards, at Brookville, Long Island. The year was l957. Because of lots of mosquitoes that season, the authorities started aerial spraying DDT over the area, sometimes as often as l4 times a day, including their biodynamic garden. And Marjorie called Rachel.

Rachel Carson’s Ballad of Cock Robin

 

Who killed Cock Robin? (Vitalism)

 

I said the Sparrow (Physicalism)

With my bow and arrow (Artificial synthesis of urea)

 

Who will be Chief Mourner?

 

I said the Dove (Existentialism)

Because of my love

 

And all the birds of the sky fell to sighing and sobbing

when they heard of the death of poor Cock Robin.

 

Bibliography

The literature on the subject is extensive; here are some of the leading sources:

Hans Jonas: The Phenomenon of Life

Thomas Kuhn: The Stucture of Scientific Revolutions

Edmund Husserl: The Crisis of the European Sciences

Armytage: The Rise of the Technocrat

Erich Heller: The Disinherited Mind

Ernst Cassirer: The Problem of Knowledge

Erich Voegelin: Published Essays

The discussion over the defeat of Vitalism as a result of the artificial synthesis of urea is carried on in the Journal of Chemical Education. McKie’s article is of special interest in an effort to debunk the smoking gun aspect of the urea experiment in defeating Vitalism. After McKie urea is thought to be a non-issue as the symbolic moment of closure on Vitalism.

Paul Tillich: The Spiritual Situation in our Technical Society

E. J. Dijksterhuis: The Mechanization of the World Picture

Goethe’s Italian Journey

Rudolf Steiner: Goethe the Scientist

Michael Polanyi: Personal Knowledge

Many of the philosophical issues, like Logical Positivism, Physicalism, Vitalism, etc., are discussed in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by Paul Edwards.

Rachel Carson: Silent Spring

Linda Lear: Rachel Carson, Witness For Nature, is the biography that tells about Marjorie Spock, p. 319; Rachel followed their suit to stop the spraying with keen interest. The judge threw out 72 uncontested admissions and denied their petition. It took three years to exhaust appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court (l960) declined on a technicality to hear the case with William O. Douglas dissenting.

Elizabeth Ring: Rachel Carson: Caring For the Earth

Craig Waddell: And No Birds Sing

Carolyn Merchant: The Death of Nature

Robert Poque Harrison: Forests: The Shadow of Civilization

 

email: drpalee@aol.com

1 comment to Who Killed Cock Robin?

  • mary

    I want to thank you for writing and posting this address and bibliography. Knocked me off my feet in a good way. Blessings.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>