[at-l] Do hiker have more hunaity? was "women's" issues

[rafeb@adelphia.net (rafeb@adelphia.net)]

On 18 Feb 2002 at 13:45, Curtis Balls wrote:

> Vine Deloria, Jr., Professor of Native American studies at the University
> of Colorado says, "It is becoming increasingly apparent that we shall not
> have the benefits of this world for much longer.  The imminent and expected
> destruction of the life cycle of world ecology can only be prevented by a
> radical shift in outlook from our present naive conception of this world as
> a testing ground to a more mature view of the universe as a comprehensive
> matrix of life forms.  Making this shift in viewpoint is essentially
> religious, not economic or political."
> 
> Perhaps this is not the correct forum for it, but I hear much more of the
> latter viewpoints expressed with any regularity on this list or among
> people who hike than I do the former.


Well, that's not surprising, is it?

I mean, there are lots of reasons why someone might 
want to hike (or thru-hike) but I would guess that a positive 
association with nature is not uncommon.  Clear-cutters, 
strip-miners, and other devoted earth-exploiters are not 
likely to be found lolling in the meadow and munching 
Pop Tarts at the  top of Snowbird Mountain.

That said, not all members of the Sierra Club or the 
World Wildlife Federation or even Earth First are nice 
people, or folks I'd want to have as friends.

I know what you mean about moments of quiet reflection 
on the AT, though.  If I'm not mistaken, it's just the sort 
of thing that Benton MacKaye had in mind when he 
originally proposed the idea of the Trail.


rafe b.