Dirty Word Clean Place Summary

The title “Dirty Word, Clean Place” implies some contradictions. The adjectives are considered opposites. In addition, a “dirty word” usually refers to a curse word or inappropriate phrase, whereas a “clean place” seems to imply a more literal meaning. David Quammen is obviously a well-educated man. His vocabulary is very extensive. He uses quite a few words that one would not hear in a casual conversation, such as “inimical” and “polemic.” Quammen uses many examples throughout his article, and cites many of them, implying that he knows his stuff and has sources to back it up.
The beginning paragraph is what draws many readers to Quammen’s article. He begins with statements implying that environmentalism is a bad thing altogether. For those who are truly against environmental protection, this is an eye-catching statement. They will want to

read further to fuel their own beliefs. On the contrary, people reading the article who consider themselves environmentalists, will also want to continue reading. Quammen’s misleading introduction will raise a red flag to those who know his conservationist reputation. The audience thus encompasses both sides of the spectrum.
Quammen then explains his real intent of the article, which is something much different.

He delves into the history of the word “environmental” as well as the history of environmental activism. He pinpoints the beginning of the movement to Rachel Carson. According to Quammen, she began the revolution by publishing her book Silent Spring. He says the negative connotations of the word began with her book, pairing “environment” and “the survival of humankind” as if they go hand in hand. This played a major role in the distortion of the word and the intentions of environmentalists.
Quammen’s main point is that the word “environmentalism” has a connotation that implies the sole importance of the survival of humanity. The destiny of mankind depends on his environment, but the environment is not a “background.” He suggests the replacement of the “environment” with “nature.” When one thinks of nature, one thinks of animals, plants, waterways and such. It is a broader term, but it better captures the whole picture. The word is dangerous because of what it might lead people to believe, much like the beginning paragraph of the

article.
The preservation of mankind should not be the central focus, for it can indeed survive in a sterilized environment. However, this ideal “clean place” would not be so ideal. Quammen describes how biodiversity there would be, with the only remaining organisms being “weeds.” His “dystopia” is not all that convincing, for there have been studies showing that biodiversity is much needed for the survival of any and all species. No one reading this article would think that this world could exist, and if it could, it would be extremely undesirable. The variation amongst nature is not only important for human health, but it also makes this world beautiful. Quammen believes federal action needs to be taken in order to conserve the natural world, and calls out specific politicians to begin making changes. Environmentalists should not be utilitarian. They should be conservationists, who do not focus only on humankind, but all of nature, which has intrinsic value.