A Lethal Lack of Industry. Walden by Henry David Thoreau - Essay Example

?23August A Lethal Lack of Industry In a day and age that promotes ultra-environmentalism, anti-capitalism, and naturalism as politically correct and spiritually savvy ideals by which to live, Henry David Thoreau, famed author and naturalist, has taken on a new popularity – as a New Age guru, if you will. In Walden, Thoreau enterprises to disenfranchise himself from everything that America stood for in the mid-1880s– progress, industrialization, and innovation. Not only did he set out to do this from the solitude of a remote forest in Massachusetts, but he also managed to declare war on the very thing that bolstered America into world prominence: modern industry. Thoreau calls for an outright rejection of virtually every advancement in technology, including transportation and communication. Even though Thoreau was quite well versed in demonizing everything that moves the economy forward, his arguments – which today’s environmentalist movements wholeheartedly embrace – are a perfect panacea for those whose ultimate ideology revolves around self-absorption, anti-capitalism, and naturalism, which would usher in the agent of destruction of everything that makes America great. The hyper-environmentalism touted by such advocates as Al Gore and Green Peace would usher in more than saved energy and trees; it would usher in economic disaster – as government regulations would make it too expensive for businesses to remain open, which would impede the advancement of the technologies that help society thrive. Even though Thoreau makes some elaborate claims as to why industrial progress is destructive, the exact opposite is true, as such advancement does much to benefit the relationships, economy, and safety of any society. One can glean some redeeming arguments from Thoreau’s overall philosophy, even though it condemns industrial progress. Literary criticism of Thoreau’s Walden elaborates on his ideals: “Simplicity is good for the soul, for the right relation with God,” (McKibben 20). This principal is further noted as having biblical authority: “In the Christian formulation: do not lay up treasure here on earth; you can’t serve both God and money,” (Ibid.), correctly demonstrating that if one is not careful, material possessions and money can become one’s god. There is much credence to this argument. Thoreau points out man’s enslavement to technology when he rhetorically asks, “If the bell rings, why should we run? (Thoreau 92).” Back then, as well as today, man can be seen as putting modern conventions before one’s relationship with fellow man and God. We see this today as computers, cell phones, cars, and television often push aside man’s intimate and essential connection with others and his Maker. These are strong arguments indeed, but Thoreau’s solution to live a life of solitude and having more interconnectedness with nature and oneself than with God and others is no solution at all; it only exacerbates the problem. Thoroughly shunning industrial advancement is not the answer to society’s problem, but Thoreau disagrees. This sentiment is capitulated by one literary critic, who notes, “and indeed, we’ve solved smog no thanks to Henry David, (McKibben 11), and goes on to state that smog is not as bad today as it was a century ago in Los Angeles, due to better technology. In other words, eliminating technology and industry is not the proper means by which to clean up our act, as advancement in these areas is the key to making things better. Yet Thoreau has another view: “But if we stay at home and mind our own business, who will need railroads? We do not ride on the railroad, it rides upon us,” (Thoreau, 87). He believes that using the tools of technology does not improve our lives, but rather, he sees them as enslaving us as a means in and of themselves – giving us no personal gain. Thoreau views technology as a hindrance to human growth by replacing intimate conversations and travel with impersonalized delivered letters and rapid railroad transit. This, however, is an ineffective argument, as modern transportation and other technologies give people the ability to interconnect and help each other in ways that were impossible before the advent of technology – whether we are talking about a rescue by a helicopter, a flight to Europe to visit a relative, or an electronic pacemaker to keep one’s heart beating. Technology, when used properly, is a benefit to society – not a hindrance. In order to promote self-absorption, Thoreau targets industry and technology as being the destructive force that impedes man’s spiritual and moral advancement. He boasts that he “earned a living by the labor of my hands only,” (Thoreau 3) and discredits those who use manufactured products or hire someone else to build their homes. Deviating from a simple lifestyle of self-reliance, according to Thoreau, ushers in the evils of the industrialized world. However, one critic points out that we should not rely on technological change to mitigate the problem of excess in our lives, as “It will require doing with less, living more lightly,” (McKibben 11). In essence, technology is not the problem and the answer; the answer lies within ourselves to live lives of moderation. As opposed to Thoreau’s assessment, industrial advancement is a benefit to society, but just like everything else, it can be used properly or abused – just as a hammer can be used to build a house or tear it down. Thoreau also touches on the industry of modern communication as being detrimental to society’s progress – a view that has little merit when analyzed properly. The author relays this assertion when he states, “For my part, I could easily do without the post office. I think that there are very few important communications made through it,” (Thoreau 88). He believed that physical personal interaction was the only appropriate means by which to communicate, arguing that modern conventions of interacting through a delivery service hindered man’s relational and personal growth. This reasoning is seen as quite unique: “Thoreau is nearly alone in his calm assurance that we could do without the post office,” (McKibben 17) ? not only because many people’s livelihoods hinge on deliveries, but due to the fact that society realizes that without such a system, the inner-working of our nation would crumble. Undoubtedly, if Thoreau were around today, he would openly criticize other modes of communication, such as the Internet, phones, television, and radio, and would fail to realize or admit that in a large society, conventions in communication must be used in order for everyone and everything to interconnect. Without the post office and other modes of communication that do not require physical one-on-one interaction, crucial business transactions could not take place, life-saving phone calls would not be made, and emergency announcements warning of such things as hurricanes or tsunamis would cost millions of lives annually. Thoreau’s message that we should eradicate modern means of communication, such as the post office, is one that should be stamped “return to sender.” Rejecting Thoreau’s call to shun the advancement of industry is one that might appeal to the ears of those itching for more politically correct jargon in an effort to “save the earth,” but in all practicality, such an appeal is downright unrealistic and dangerous. High-profile environmentalist movements – such as those led by Green Peace and Al Gore ? would have fishing and lumbering industries shut down or suffer debilitating regulations in order to “keep the planet from destruction.” But these solutions, which Thoreau would support, would bring famine and economic disaster. The idealist author takes an extreme stance that puts nature and oneself above the welfare of society as a whole. Industrial progress has played a beneficial role in virtually every aspect of our lives, including health, communication, and the standard of living. Instead of embracing this advancement, “Thoreau was questioning the individual’s role and obligations, not to society only, but to himself (Cramer 17), believing that citizens must look inside themselves and their connection with nature in order to reach what he considered the highest state of existence. Even though this stance jives with modern transcendentalists whose beliefs stem from Thoreau’s philosophy to discover one’s inner spirituality and “higher reasoning” through rejecting materialism and everything for which free enterprise and capitalism stands, a rational response to Thoreau’s exhortation to disown industrial advancement is to tie it up and throw it back into the woods where it belongs. Many still ascribing to this mode of thought currently espoused by the Unitarian church and taught by Harvard Divinity School are at the forefront of the movements that declare war on industrial progress. But this philosophy fails to acknowledge a crucial point. We live in a world of interconnectedness, where we all specialize in different things and share our expertise and services with others to benefit society as a whole. Following Thoreau’s advice to turn our backs on industry’s innovations would not be progress, but a fatal step backward into the dark abyss of Walden Pond. Works Cited Cramer, Jeffrey S. Introduction. Walden: A Fully Annotated Edition. By Henry David Thoreau. 2004. New Haven: Yale University Press. 15-25. Print. McKibben, Bill. Introduction. Walden: Introduction and Annotations by Bill McKibben. By Henry David Thoreau. 2004. Boston: Beacon Press. 7-22. Print. Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1989. Print. Read More