What were the major supporting arguments?

In 1963, author Rachel Carson published the controversial and highly influential book Silent Spring.  At the time, she was called upon to testify in court about the findings and observations laid out in her book.  This book would become the groundwork for a massive environmental movement which recognized the dangers of chemicals used in agriculture around the world. During this time, she was dying of cancer, birds were not raising their own chicks, and animals were born with horrific defects. The culprit? Pesticides, particularly one known as DDT, a toxic chemical which she argued not only poisoned the bugs that were eating the plants, but also the environment and humans as well.
Carson was a scientist and a citizen, and few authors have captured the imagination and the attention of the public as she did. In Silent Spring, she argues that these toxins make their way into the very fiber of the plants that we eat, into the animals which eat them, into the soil, and into the air, spreading massive amounts of harmful chemicals across the earth and causing long-term devastation the likes of which this planet had never seen.
Although Carson was not religious, she argued that humans had a moral responsibility to coexist with nature and to protect it from human selfishness. She posed a moral question that spurred the ideals behind modern ecology: “By acquiescing in an act that causes such suffering to a living creature, who among us is not diminished as a human being?” Within this question was a call to action, a call to accept our responsibility and do away with our arrogance.  In essence, she wanted people to understand that they were minuscule in the design of the universe, but, through their actions, they could cause lasting effects that would ripple into the future.
Carson used the aftermath of the nuclear bombings and played upon the emotions of the era in her book.  If we are aware of the effects of radiation and seek to protect people from its power, she argued, “How then, can we be indifferent to the same effect in chemicals that we disseminate widely in our environment?” In her investigations and through her observations, she learned that corporations were lying about the effects of their products to consumers; she knew she needed to share this knowledge with the world. She argued that humans should not attempt to control nature in the name of progress, tampering with such a delicate balance would irrevocably damage it.  She was correct, of course.  Through these arguments, she was able to open the public’s eyes to the harsh realities and effects of big business.