[at-l] Cell phones VS Nature - An attempt to clarify - LONG

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

Yet another sane person steps forward. Thank you Shane.

At 12:17 PM 7/31/2005 -0500, Shane Steinkamp wrote:
> > Perhaps we can all agree that a long hike with a cell
> > phone is a different experience than a hike without a
> > cell phone.
> >
> > Take the extreme example of my 1991 30 day walk with
> > a nine-year-old. Without a phone we were constantly
> > in the woods...
>
> > With a phone this experience would have been
> > interrupted daily with conversations with his Mom...
>
>What you propose isn't necessarily true.  Yes, you could abuse it like 
>that, but in reality that's a choice, not a function of the existence of 
>the cell phone.  It's not all or nothing.
>
>I've seen both sides of the coin.  I carry a cell phone when I hike.  Of 
>course, where I frequently hike, the cell phone doesn't work.  It doesn't 
>even work at the trailhead.  I don't like to leave it in the car because 
>it might be stolen.  Even if it did work, I can choose to turn it on or 
>not.  If I were going on a long hike, I'd just leave it off.  I'd have one 
>contact person - my wife being the obvious choice - and the phone calls 
>would be, "Hey honey.  Everything's fine with me."
>
>"OK, dear.  We're all well."
>
>"OK.  Bye."
>
>I really fail to see how such a conversation every few days could possibly 
>more distracting than a nine-year-old 24-7.  The largest distraction for 
>me on any trail of any length has always been people - which is why I 
>avoid people as much as possible.
>
>I just don't see how having a brief conversation with someone on a cell 
>phone is more destructive to my wilderness experience than someone coming 
>along on the trail and talking to me.  The physical presence of a person 
>is much more intrusive for me.
>
>I think that's just something that each person has to work out for 
>themselves, because each person is different.  RNR sees cell phones as an 
>evil device that directly counters the AT's wilderness ethic.  He carries 
>a radio, though, and that's just fine for him.  A radio would completely 
>ruin any sense of wilderness for me.  I'd never carry one.  I wouldn't 
>carry any kind of CD player or TIVO thing or whatever.  If I wanted to 
>listen to news, weather, or music, I'd have stayed home.  Each person 
>makes the decision for themselves what they will or will not tolerate.
>
>Every piece of gear we carry is an intrusion of some kind into the 
>'absolutely pure' experience.  While nobody here is likely interested in 
>the idea, if you want a perfectly pure experience, you'd have to go 
>naked.  Rather than waste bandwidth, I'll just direct you here:
>
>http://www.theplacewithnoname.com/hiking/sections/naked/bodymind.htm
>
>It's all about the civilization reflex.  It's different for each 
>person.  I doubt the vast majority of people would even make it past 
>Exercise 1.  Wilderness is something that gets paid a lot of lip service, 
>but very little actual contact.
>
>Shane
>
>_______________________________________________
>at-l mailing list
>at-l@backcountry.net
>http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l