Cronon prompts an interesting discussion on the role of nature in narratives, one that I think Koppes lacked, and that is: although nature, in and of itself, is not always linear, why and how do we fit it in to a narrative structure? \u201cEnvironmental history sets itself the task of including within its boundaries far more of the nonhuman world than most other histories, and yet human agents continue to be the main anchors of its narratives.\u201d This problem of framing the role of nature is especially tricky when we think about nature in a nonlinear sort of way. Sometimes things in nature are cyclical and at times random, so how do we condense nature into a narrative structure? \u00a0Should we? And moreover, we tend to talk about nature in terms of its instrumental value at the sake of its intrinsic value, which creates an interesting problem when we try to determine its importance.<\/p>\n

One of the things I think we need to be especially wary of is the tendency to reduce nature\u2019s implications to binaries such as good vs. bad, helpful vs. harmful. Because if postmodernism has taught us anything, it\u2019s that we need to be skeptical of our epistemological lenses. And yet, this fear shouldn\u2019t stop historical inquiry. I think Molly<\/a> wrote it best when she said, \u201cHe believes that \u2018historical storytelling helps keep us morally engaged with the world by showing us how to care about it and its origins in ways we had not done before\u2019 (1375).\u00a0 Even if narrative histories are malleable, they help humans today stay morally engaged.\u00a0 Historians\u2019 efforts are not futile, even in a postmodernist society.\u201d<\/p>\n

I\u2019m particularly concerned with ensuring that nature in an objective form is represented in history. But this is difficult when \u201cNature is unlike most other historical subjects in lacking a clear voice of its own\u201d while simultaneously being anything but silent. We interpret nature\u2019s meaning from our own human values and we can\u2019t always stay true to the facts that are presented. This is why Bonnifield and Worster came to such different conclusions. But as Molly said, this may not always be bad if we can keep humans today morally engaged.<\/p>\n