Eportfolio for Lani Rush Paper 4

Divergent Paths
Robert Frost is arguably the most famous American poet, and his standout work “The Road Not Taken” has been criticized and analyzed by many, from schoolchildren to philosophers. The metaphor of two paths in “The Road Not Taken” is most often compared to choosing between what is easy and what is right, but it can also be applied to many different dilemnas in our lives and society. One such situation is the evolution of our relationship with the natural world. I believe that differing scholars see different paths. In the opinon of David Nye the two paths available are continuing along the current road of consumption and a fossil-fuel driven market, or using technology to find a new means of supporting our infrastructure. Carolyn Merchant might see the choice before us as one closely related to destruction or salvation, our current path leading us to an unsustainable future and our ruination. She might also see a different path, where the cultural outlook has changed such that Mother Nature is respected and our society has reevaluated its goals and values. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger might use two paths also, between old and new politics. They might view old politics as the path that will lead us toward our destruction via inaction, and the path of new politics our salvation. All three sources can use Robert Frost’s “Two Roads” to explain the relationship ship between the natural world and society: Nordhaus and Shellenberger relate environmentalism to our political struture, Nye analyses the relationship between the natural world and the cultural choices of our technology, and Carolyn Merchant explores the relationship between cultural values and nature. All of these observers see two paths, one that heads toward enlightenment and a better relationship with the natural world and one that leads to our destruction, however imminent. I believe that we are at a unique place in history and our choices are not as clear cut as two roads.
Carolyn Merchant has detailed the road we have traveled to come to this fork quite well, and her view of the shifts in time is most easily seen in the chart on page 26. The view of nonhuman Nature provides a close parallel between the relationship of humanity to the environment. Carolyn Merchant’s opinion, Native American society viewed nonhuman Nature as “active,” believing that the natural world was seen as a living system. This relationship was focused on “reciprocity between humans and nature,” showing the equality of man and natural forces. The colonial ecological revolution occurs, however, and this perspective shifts to viewing nature as “passive commodities” but also fosters a “fatalistic acceptance of nature.” The natural world is seen as something to use to the fullest extent, but still has its own power and mystery. After the capitalist revolution, the natural world is seen as a “scientific object” to be studied and understood. This understanding then leads to “domination and mastery of nature.” Carolyn Merchant believes we are still in the aftermath of the capitalist revolution, thus we are still in the mindset of seeing the natural world as something to own, possess, use, and discard as we see fit. Her two paths that fork in a yellow wood might be the path of continuing as we are, holding dominion and mismanaging our power over the earth, or a path with a different cultural view of Nature. Perhaps she would see a “road less traveled” of a society that see Nature as a living being to be respected and cared for. I believe Carolyn Merchant would also be admant that making this cultural shift would, in the end, “make all the difference.”
If David Nye was to come to a fork in the woods down which he could not see, he might relate these paths to the use of technology in our society and how it is related to our cultural choices. He believes that “technologies are social constructions,” and perhaps he would see paths with different uses of technology. On the current path, we use technology to try to halt the progression of global warming and in half-hearted attempts at alternative fuels until all our sources of fossil fuels become unviable. On the other path, Nye might imagine a future where culture demands that beneficial environmental technology is developed and used in unforseen ways to address our current environmental woes.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger might see two divergent paths, one with old politics and one with the new. With old politics, we will be too late to effectively stop global warming and will eventually spiral into destruction. On the path with new politics, there is hope that we can merge interests and create an economy and society “that joins the individual’s self-interest with the common good.” Perhaps down this new political path, there would be an emergence of environmentalism that does not “seek to constrain human ambition and power” but rather “unleashes and directs them.” Both Nordhaus and Shellenberger and Nye’s path have a shift not in cultural values, but in technological and political ones.
All three sources have one thing in common, however. There is a choice between what is easy and what is right. The path we choose will be irrevocable and we will never stand at a similar juncture ever again. Nye, Nordhaus and Shellenberger, and Merchant all agree that now is the time for change. The source of the change, technological, political, cultural, differs between scholars, but there is always change. I believe that these scholars have a valid point. American society has recently elected a man whose campaign was based on change, and the world is ready. There is no time like the present to choose the road less traveled by, as we can all guess where the road more traveled by will lead. I believe that this change in the view of the natural world will come from the youth, for any of the reasons discussed by Nye, Merchant, or Nordhaus and Shellenberger. I propose that my generation will choose the path less traveled by, or in the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, we shall “go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”