[at-l] Re: Modern Devices, etc.

[RoksnRoots at aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

In a message dated 3/8/04 12:14:09 PM, Bror8588@aol.com writes:


> I mean, after all,
> there was a time when people hiked without nylon or synthetic material.? 
> Does
> anyone advocate going to all wool and the dangerous Cotton?? I don't believe 
> that
> anyone would advocate abandoning the compass in favor of a sextant (I know
> that both are useful in conjunction with each other as on ships at sea).? 
> The use
> of modern technology is useful for safety and convenience and should be
> reserved IMO for that use or at least where it will not impinge upon other 
> hiker's
> sense of wilderness.
> 
> So read an event that is a good learning opportunity as well as a hiking
> story.
> 

           ***     That brand new anti-gravity pod Chainsaw told me about is 
VERY safe! Its silent operation and instant communications to anywhere in the 
world has opened unprecedented new areas for Trail safety to me. After all, 
before those stubborn old-stylers were using lugged soles and chewing up the 
trail. Their campsites were causing big worn spots etc. I've found my 
climate-controlled pod to be quickest for cooking and shelter and you don't have to hang 
food bags!

            Something isn't right here. Why am I thinking about wilderness?


             If a cable tram were built on the north side of Everest it would 
really improve the safety margin of the climb. Climbers reaching the summit 
the old fashioned way from the south could simply swallow their elitism and 
admit their side of the climb was still wild. HYOH! 

            Something isn't right???

    
             While there's no doubt that a cell phone can improve safety on 
the Trail, there's even less doubt that it can destroy the sense of wildness 
that the Trail was built to create in the first place. People tend to forget 
that sometimes. This is all verifiable by the Trail's written premise under ATC 
(if anybody still cares or respects that any more). It is only fair that when 
cases for cell phone normalcy are made, the important wildness side be 
represented too.

          Sounds to me like that man would have made it out if he was under 
his own power. I used to maintain in Harriman and it is prone to a lot of NY 
area persons not familiar with the woods. That is what it is there for. Another 
thing it is there for is having a totally remote and disconnected place from 
civilization only 40 miles from Times Square, Manhattan. There are a lot of 
trade-offs you can make for wilderness. One of them is having a better sense of 
safety. Danger is inherent to outdoors recreation. You can go over a cliff with 
a cell phone fully charged in your pack. Or you can have a cell phone get 
drenched in water inside your tent. You can also die after having pushed it too 
far in the Whites and called for help. The point I'm getting at is if someone 
made a proposition to me that I could have a much improved level of safety on 
the AT by approving wildness-compromising devices, or they told me the risk 
would stay the same AND I would be guaranteed the same wild Trail I love, I would 
pick the latter... 

          A good way to judge the need for wilderness is to ask yourself if a 
lawsuit charging that the AT's wilderness was being damaged, or a lawsuit 
charging that cell phone restriction was endangering safety, would be more likely 
to win under normal sensibilities? The answer is that the safety lawsuit 
would probably win. The reason is because wilderness doesn't mean much to normal 
determining influences unless it is forced. That pre-definition is the AT and 
what it is based upon... 

          I'm sure an equal number of anti-cell phone anecdotes could be 
gotten from Baxter, where they are banned. Those tales would be just as persuasive 
to me. Wilderness is the easiest thing to sell out first when you "aren't 
really interested". That's why it should be the first thing protected...