Not so silent after all

From the Wikipedia article on Silent Spring comes this quote from the book itself:

No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. The world has heard much of the triumphant war against disease through the control of insect vectors of infection, but it has heard little of the other side of the story—the defeats, the short-lived triumphs that now strongly support the alarming view that the insect enemy has been made actually stronger by our efforts. Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting. ... What is the measure of this setback? The list of resistant species now includes practically all of the insect groups of medical importance. ... Malaria programmes are threatened by resistance among mosquitoes. ... Practical advice should be 'Spray as little as you possibly can' rather than 'Spray to the limit of your capacity' ..., Pressure on the pest population should always be as slight as possible.

That last bit deserves to be repeated.

Practical advice should be 'Spray as little as you possibly can' rather than 'Spray to the limit of your capacity' ..., Pressure on the pest population should always be as slight as possible.

This was written in 1962. Since then, we have seen the consequences of ignoring this advice in other areas, too. Antibiotic resistant staph? TB?
Wikipedia quotes a 1999 Time magazine article about Silent Spring:

Carson was violently assailed by threats of lawsuits and derision, including suggestions that this meticulous scientist was a "hysterical woman" unqualified to write such a book. A huge counterattack was organized and led by Monsanto, Velsicol, American Cyanamid — indeed, the whole chemical industry — duly supported by the Agriculture Department as well as the more cautious in the media.

Monsanto. You don't say.

The thing that strikes me about the text from Silent Spring is how moderate it is. One last quote from Wikipedia:

Carson had made it clear she was not advocating the banning or complete withdrawal of helpful pesticides, but was instead encouraging responsible and carefully managed use, with an awareness of the chemicals' impact on the entire ecosystem.

It seems to me that I see this phenomenon on an almost daily basis. Person A makes a statement. Person B wildly overreacts. Perhaps Person B didn't really hear all of what Person A said. Perhaps Person B only heard a few words and filled in the rest out of their own imagination. Or perhaps person B has some idea about Person A, either from experience or just innate prejudice, that makes them assume they know what Person A is saying. It may sound nebulous and vague when it's described this way, but my opinion is that practically every flame war on the internet fits this pattern to a greater or lesser degree.

This troubles me. First of all, there is so much needless energy and emotion expended with people flying off the handle. Even worse, there is no resolution. The argument goes around in circles and never gets anywhere. There is no hope of compromise, and no problems are solved.

Of course, I include myself among the guilty parties.