Michael Pollan writes about the three ecological consequences of synthetic fertilizers. The first consequence is the contamination of drinking water caused by synthetic fertilizers. The second consequence is the overflow of the fertilizers to the ocean and forest. The third consequence is the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico created causing the death of a huge amount of living organisms. The three consequences are not anything beneficiary to earth, they are instead disasters. Similarly, Rachel Carson mentions the negative effect pesticides have brought to the environment. Carson wrote, “ …, the central problem of our age has therefore become the contamination of man’s total environment with such substances of incredible potential for harm, …”(8). She suggests to be cautious about the direct impact of pesticides on human. Both Michael Pollan and Rachel Carson are aware of the harmful effect of the human-made chemicals. Despite the fact that the two objects are completely different, they still are harmful to the well-being of all organisms living on …show more content…
Such a system set the stage for explosive increases in specific insect population.” (10). Monoculture has its own negative effects. Both Pollan and Carson points out the problems it will bring to the ecosystem. With a field filled with the same kind of plants, pest issues becomes more severe because of the lack of diversity. What it also does is that it shrinks the biodiversity which then tips the balance between species and species. The use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers is related to the rise of monoculture, and both Pollan and Carson mentions it in their