“I have learned that the swiftest traveler is he that goes afoot” (48).
I will take that advice, then, and set upon my prescribed walk. Thoreau’s parable of the two travelers—one by foot, and one by manmade contraption—illustrates a problem that men face in nature. Increasing the potential for work within a system requires energy. Energy is not free. So, while it may seem profitable to move oneself with the speed of a locomotive, in a closed system where one must somehow provide the energy to create that speed, (or—if my analogy may extend to cover a broader sense of human economics, as Thoreau’s does—pay someone else to harness that energy) it can never be faster.
“And so, if the railroad reached around the world, I think that I should keep ahead of you” (49).
In fact, Thoreau argues that it will always be slower! Converting energy from one form to another always involves waste. If I may again extend this natural law to the realm of economics, one can see it at play in Thoreau’s story. Spending the day, for example, picking apples in an orchard, then giving them to a man, who gives them to a driver, who takes them to a grocer, who sells them to another man, who gives the grocer money, who gives the driver money, who gives the orchard owner money, who gives the picker his share of the trickle to give to a man who will then let him on a train, seems so obviously unprofitable when compared to simply walking the distance.
“Such is the universal law, which no man can ever outwit.”
Systems tend to disorder. Entropy is impossible to fight at a profit. I admit that my walk through nature this evening afforded far less attention to the natural world than might be hoped, but there lies around my feet an abundance of potholes—proof that someone has paid a least a small attention to the laws of nature. I would much prefer if men came monthly, weekly, or even daily to fill in these gaping holes (one might begin to call them abysses at this point!) in my path. Someone has decided, however, it is better that my journey be bump-ridden than it is wasting the energy smoothing it.
“To make a railroad around the world available to all mankind is equivalent to grading the surface of the planet.”
The moon starts to show, and I wonder if the heavens deceive us on purpose. Their bodies move, silently, seemingly ceaseless, without provocation. This smiling man never sees need to walk to and fro. We find ourselves trapped by the imagination that we might one day do the same, held down by the folly that we might forever fall.
What about the guy that can't walk to the orchard? or rather, the man that refuses to walk more than one day for apples? Is he then unintitled to apples? I love Thoreau's idea about the waste in energy in the chain of picker, driver, grocer etc. and I agree, except I have no idea what that means for the man who can't reach the apples. My timeline is a little wonky, but I don't think Thoreau would've been able to read Darwin, but part of me wonders if he had simply because he ignores the fact that not everyone has access to the same materials/necessities for living. I understand that different environments would produce different necessities i.e., one man's apple is another's mango and so on; but I think the idea of commerce and trade is that everyone can have apples! If I can have apples and we can move them around, then everyone can enjoy apples and that is fabulous! Ok, it might not actually be fabulous what with the wasting of the energies and the misplaced work, but I've always wondered why Thoreau takes apart the finer points of commerce rather than the ideas behind it. What would he think about using the chain of work to send aid to flood victims? What about the man who isn't a farmer? Must we all have gardens?
ReplyDeleteHmm, a very interesting point indeed. It seems like Thoreau's ecomonic outlook somewhat echo's the ideals a cummune (I say that because I'm not entirely sure if that is what he means by saying that everyone show expend energy on a lower and equal level).
ReplyDeleteRegardless, I'm a little confused by what Thoreau actually expects of people in terms of Economy and I am also confused if he is aware that he himself is an active participant in molding the economy the way it is. I mean, I feel like that if one believes that they must take the time and energy to write a book for the masses to read, he becomes just as much the problem as he/she preaches about to begin with.
It may have been the case that when initially creating his philosophical works that he never intended for it to become a book sold for profit, but regardless of his intentions he has created and amasses an amount of energy to create Walden, therefore either inspiring or angering other writers, poets, artists, etc, who read his book to create a companion piece, or perhaps something to best his very work.
My question is what Thoreau thinks of the difference between actions and intenetions when working with the Economy? I didn't really gather that from the reading so I'm curious what some may think of this question, because Thoreau, I feel, is just as part of the problem as everyone else.
Great post, Derry!!
ReplyDeleteI guess I am responding to both Kelsey's comment and to the original blog post, I mean, what ABOUT the guy who can't get the apples without transport or without having them imported to him? This really got me thinking about Thoreau, and how he is an absolutely self-aware cog in the machine that was the commerce in that era. I wonder, however, if by his arguments that everyone should walk to their destinations, that he feels as though in a perfect world the man who was not within reach of apples SHOULDN'T have the apples at all. I feel that most of what Thoreau has to say is about the 'ideal' situation, and the 'ideal' world, not necessarily the world that is a possibility or the world that he is willing to live in. Maybe I should never have tasted a mango. Maybe mangos should be saved for only those who can go out and pluck them ripe for the taking. Thoreau speaks of the local, of a wish to "live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life"... Maybe a lack of mangoes in my life would make my life more deliberate and essential. Maybe, if I wanted a mango badly enough, in an ideal Thoreau-vian world I would walk (?) to where there were mangoes, so that they would be precious and exotic and worth the trip and the journey and the wait. Can you imagine how much I would enjoy them then? How sacred and special the eating of a mango would be? I'm not sure what the answers are, but thank you for bringing to my mind the questions. :)