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

[glendahubbard at yahoo.com (Glenda Hubbard)]

You say it so much better than I do, Shane.  Thanks

Sparrow

--- Shane Steinkamp <shane@theplacewithnoname.com>
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
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com