A few years ago I read one of my state's politicians refused to attend an event honoring Rachel Carson (the mother of environmentalism, it is said) because of the human damage she caused by creating fear of DDT in her famous book Silent Spring.
At the time I thought it was just odd, perhaps just political, but recently I've noticed Reason magazine (Aug/Sept 2012, page 12) join in the criticism here they say Carson (1) exaggerated cancer rates (2) ignored the benefits of pesticides and (3) promoted the myth of the balance of nature. More from Reason here.
This "myth of the balance of nature" I'm only recently beginning to understand. Supposedly, some became fearful that once the environment received a certain amount of damage a feedback mechanism amplified the damage multiple times, leading to considerable damage.
I wonder to the extent ecological economists subscribe to the balance of nature argument.
Reason suggests the "balance of nature" argument is a myth. I would be interested in learning more, especially if it is a myth in some cases but not in others.
