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

[shane at theplacewithnoname.com (Shane Steinkamp)]

>            Now I'm awaiting Shane's response dealing with the Trail's
purpose
> and how cell phone use (the real use, not the airy philosophical wandering
we
> see in these posts) affects it. You can't argue that networked
connectivity
> doesn't make the Trail less wild - which is probably why no one does.

See below.

> Shane's
> reply strikes me as seizing on a potential hypocrisy rather than
appreciating
> what was really said, and its validity. I suspect people using the radio
> example don't really care about the radio's impact. They are just using it
to avoid
> the real issue, which is responsible stewardship of the Trail by its users
> (which some reduce to "telling others how to run their lives")...

Oh, but I DO care about the radio's impact very much.  The point was that
some people have different ideas as to what constitutes an acceptable
incursion on the Trail as a wilderness mechanism designed to be a sanctuary
from civilization and a place maintained that way by theme.  You still don't
see the radio as a problem, you "believe a radio is OK
and doesn't break the civilization line."  Well, that's simply an arbitrary
standard that you set.

I understand your point of view quite well.  You feel that cell phones are
an effective inroad by civilization into a place deliberately designed to
keep civilization out.  In truth, though, in place of the words *cell phone*
you could insert any piece of gear and the statement wouldn't change.  Any
electronic gear, IMO, qualifies.  I can (and have) made the very same
argument against clothing.

http://www.theplacewithnoname.com/hiking/sections/naked/bodymind.htm

Everybody has to make their own decision about how much wilderness they can
stand.

>            I hope people realize that Shane used a wilderness ethic
argument
> against the radio in order to undermine the AT's wilderness ethic. The AT
is a
> unique situation. Its very circumstances of proximity to large populations
> and high use necessitates closer oversight of how it is used. Most people
use
> these infringements as an excuse for not backing that purpose at all.
Shane has
> offered us an anecdotal example. He completely avoids how that affects the
> AT...

The truth is that the AT itself is unaffected by this at all.  It is PEOPLE
who are affected or unaffected.   They do NOTHING to nature.  A cell phone
on the AT doesn't change the path of the trail, the height of the mountains,
the rain, the heat, the cold, or a single blade of grass.  I challenge you
to prove otherwise.  A cell phone on top of Everest would do nothing to
change that natural place.  They DO, however, have the possible ability to
change man's relationship with his perceived notion of wilderness.  Having
said that, I think it is entirely necessary to carefully preserve the AT and
even expand it as a designed wilderness tank.

I don't think that there is anyone on this list who would disagree with
this.  I certainly don't, despite your repeated insistence that I somehow
hate wilderness.  Successful and experienced hikers cannot possibly avoid
knowledge of what 'wilderness' is, what 'wildness' is, or what being a part
of the natural environment means.  We have all read Thoreau's definitive
statement: "In Wildness is the preservation of the world."  The vast
majority of us - and I'd bet that all of us - are in love with the natural
world.  Otherwise, we wouldn't be hikers; rather, we'd spend our walking
time on a treadmill while watching TV.

Nature is as nature is, and either exists or does not.  Wilderness, on the
other hand, is a highly perceptive thing.  If your definition of wilderness
involves a lack of communication with the outside world, then cell phones
impact your sense of wilderness in a very real way.  It is even possible
that the very existence of cell phones will change your perception forever -
since it is always possible that someone with a cell phone is just over the
next hill.  Everyone's definition of this concept will be different.  Late
in his life, my grandfather's idea of 'roughing it' meant 'no cable
television'.

Arguing about our definitions of wilderness, about our perceptions of
wilderness, and about which perceptual battles have already been lost do
NOTHING to preserve the natural world - something that is very real; and I
think very much worth preserving.

Even if cell phones are totally banned within the AT corridor, is that
really enough?  Someone might still smuggle one in and use it anyway.  What
is the cutoff point for the view of technological exclusion that you
propose, and who shall make that decision?  Who shall enforce this?  Aren't
rules an incursion by civilization?  Evidently, 'two way communication' is a
bad thing for wilderness in your view.  I fail to see, though, how these
three things are functionally different:

1.  I meet a hiker and he tells me that terrorists have attacked New York.
2.  I am listening to a radio at night and hear that terrorists have
attacked New York.
3.  I call home for my weekly check-in and my wife tells me that terrorists
have attacked New York.

In every case, I am having communication with the outside world.  My
disconnection from civilization has been bridged, and civilization has found
me.  Personally, when I go out, my wife has specific instructions NOT to
tell me anything that is going on in the world.  I just don't care.  All I
need to know is whether or not everyone is well, and that they know that I
am well.

Really, though, the wrong questions are being asked.  We need to focus, not
on the  Wilderness' so often discussed amongst outdoorsy types, but the
nature of man's relationship to that wilderness.

When I first entered the 'wilderness', it was just that - wild. I was a
child set loose among many dangers. It was frightening, stimulating, and awe
inspiring. I was a man in the woods. THIS was wilderness. A man against the
natural world. Here he would pit his strength, both mental and physical
against the rigors of this savage land. He would conquer it - even subdue
it - and walk proudly through his domain.

Should I go back in time and meet myself right there at that point, the man
I am now would slap the man I was right up-side his fool head. After so much
time spent there, in that wilderness, that man did nothing to conquer or
subdue the wilderness - rather the wilderness conquered and subdued the man.
Then there was, after many years, a sudden fading of all
sense of wilderness and I became a natural creature in a natural world.  It
faded because I came to realize that 'wilderness' is a man-made idea - a
human creation.  Successful and experienced hikers cannot possibly avoid
knowledge of what 'wilderness' is, what 'wildness' is, or what being a part
of the natural environment means, and I have written exhaustive explanations
of this in the past.  I will say it again, though, since the point must have
been missed: Without confronting the abstract notions of man's relationship
to nature, it will be hard to know how to preserve the AT, the trail
corridor, and establish reasonable use of the resource.

Vilifying a cell phone, or any other inanimate object is simply foolish; but
that's all the anti-cell-phone rhetoric seems to do.  What is the solution?
I'd prefer to hear that than to continually hear the war drums beat for the
perception of 'wilderness' when that greater subject is almost wholly
ignored.

In my opinion, wilderness is a word used by people who are still too far
removed from their natural habitat. There is, for me, no place I have
visited - and I would hazard to say few places I could visit - that I should
consider a wilderness. I have become a natural man, comfortable in my
natural environment. (I am also comfortable in my unnatural environment
called a 'house'.) Should you drop me, stark naked, into many (not all)
kinds of terrain, I would not mind much. I lost my wilderness when I lost my
fear. Would I LIKE to have gear and warm clothes and lots of other
accoutrements (and sometimes a cell phone or a gun)? Of course, but that is
not the point. Once you loose the your 'sense of wilderness' you gain
something much more precious - the sense of existing as a part of the
natural world.

I don't want to be a man in a wilderness.  I want to be a human in my
habitat.

>From that standpoint, the trail itself is an extension of civilization, no
matter how faint - but wilderness is a matter of degrees. For families who
drive to scenic overlooks, stop for 2 minutes, then drive off without ever
getting out of the car, that is as much wilderness as they can handle. The
trail is as much as some others can handle, but for still others, wilderness
does not begin until they leave the trail behind. To do so does not require
any great skill - or any great length of time, even though the 'thruhike'
seems to be seen by many as the holy grail of hiking. For some, I am sure it
is.

None of these, to my mind, is better or worse than the other - they all just
experience the world in their own way. Some people, however, have noticed
the curative effects of the outdoors on the mental, physical, emotional, and
spiritual heath of men and women.

I have read much lately about 'preserving the wilderness', but the
definition of 'wilderness' is always lacking. Environmentalists and other
concerned people who seek to preserve 'wilderness' cannot do so. They can
never do so, because 'wilderness' is not a real thing. It is a phenomenon
created by perception. This is, in fact, by their own admission. What they
are doing, however, in a very real and important way is preserving the
natural world - even though they often miss the mark because they fail to
ask the right questions.

So, "If the sense of wilderness is to be found in our heads, then what is
the importance of protecting trails and their corridors?" The answer is
quite easy. The preservation of the trail and its view shed, as a part of
the natural world (scenic vista being an important part), is important for
the perception of being in nature for most people. Just because I personally
do not NEED such vistas to experience the natural world, does NOT mean I do
not desire them greatly. On the contrary, I desire them quite a lot - and I
don't personally find them disrupted by a simple cell phone.

In some sense, the AT and (it's corridor) isn't really a trail. It's a very
large, very long, museum that preserves a very precious kind of natural
'art'. I should no more desire the building of condos across the trail than
I desire to allow children to scribble on the Mona Lisa. Your perceptions
when you experience that art, however, are totally subjective.

You can't 'preserve' wilderness any more than you can preserve a sense of
awe when looking at art.  To preserve the natural world, though, is
something entirely different - but to what end that? I am with MacKaye: The
natural world, and the trail allowing easy access to it, is necessary not
for the sake of themselves, but for the sake of mankind. For the sake of
allowing those few souls who choose to, to discover, in the natural world,
in a natural way, their own humanity.  A trail - the AT or any constructed
trail - isn't about the trail, it's about people and about humanity.

Man was not made for the trail, the trail was made for man.  This facet
should not be forgotten.

You see, though, that you cannot express that so simply since most newbies
have no concept of what we are talking about.  They haven't discovered it
yet.

For the masses, you will have to fight the same notion that faced the
Puritan pioneers in America.  The wild new world they found was seen not as
a sublime source of mysterious truths but as a desolate wasteland, raw
material awaiting transformation by honest Christian toil into a tamed and
useful resource. One such pioneer described the America he found when he
disembarked from the Mayflower as a 'hideous and desolate wilderness'.  It
was something to be overcome.

There is an excellent essay that talks about this indirectly that is
available here:
http://julian-richards.co.uk/desert_essay/desert_art.html

As I said previously, I personally felt this way when I first began
encountering the wilderness on my own.  I had to overcome this wild place.
In the end though, that proved not only impossible, but also undesirable.
BUT unless and until this sentimental notion of wilderness is defined,
understood, and communicated the theory that cell phones can or do destroy
such a subjective experience to a greater degree than other pieces of gear
will remain just that - subjective theory.

Therein lies the hard part, because for some a cell phone is a legitimate
tool that allows one to experience the natural world while still tending to
mundane responsibility.  For others, a cell phone is a wicked tool that
allows them to overcome the wilderness is a way that keeps them separate
from the natural world.  It isn't about phones.  It's about people.

When Weary was recovering from having his mitral valve replaced with a bit
of pig skin, his wife insisted that he carry a cell phone when walking in
his land trust woods.  This was something that he did to allow for his
wife's peace of mind, and possibly for his own safety - if the cell phone
would have worked or he would have been able to use it in his circumstance.
The cell phone was an allowance he made to allow him the literal freedom to
take a hike.  I doubt that he enjoyed his walks less because he had a few
ounces of electronics in his pocket.  Can you really grudge him those walks
because of his phone?  I can't.

Personally, I go out into the woods to get away from people entirely.  In
the woods, for the most part, people offend me just by their existence.  I
don't care if they're talking to a cell phone or talking to me.  I just go
somewhere else.  Somewhere that people ain't.

As for me, I have walked the boreal forests where most men do not go and
where dark and ancient things sleep.  I can still feel those places in my
heart, and they are a part of me.  I understand my humanity, and my
relationship to my world.  It is a greater thing than just a trail.  A
greater thing than just a man, or many men.  It is a greater thing than you,
or me, or this list, but I do not think it is something you have recognized.

Even having said all that, you will still accuse me of trying to destroy the
ATs wilderness ethic.  Of hating wilderness.  Of trying to civilize the
trail.  I have said nothing of the sort.  You will also accuse me of not
answering the question, so allow me to do so directly:

>            Now I'm awaiting Shane's response dealing with the Trail's
purpose
> and how cell phone use (the real use, not the airy philosophical wandering
we
> see in these posts) affects it. You can't argue that networked
connectivity
> doesn't make the Trail less wild - which is probably why no one does.

The truth is, R-N-R, that sat phones work anywhere in the world.  Cell
phones are a moot point if you think about it.  The entire world is
networked.  I can make a phonecall from jungle rainforests.  I can check my
email in the middle of the Sahara.  I can shop online while sitting anywhere
along the AT.  The world is a lot smaller than it was a few years ago.

To answer you directly, the real use of cell phones does not affect the
trail's purpose at all.  The trail retains the same purpose it always had -
as a wilderness mechanism designed to be a sanctuary from civilization and a
place maintained that way by theme.

Further, a cell phone does not make the trail less wild.  A cell phone will
not keep me warm at night or cool by day.  It will not feed me.  It will not
slake my thirst.  A phone won't keep me from breaking an ankle, getting a
sunburn, keep the bugs off me, or prevent me from being eaten by a wild
creature.  A phone will not - and cannot - in any way at all reduce the
physical or mental demands of the trail itself.

The psychological impact is something else entirely, and that psychological
impact could be quite severe.  The phone could be used a civilization crutch
to lessen the involvement of the individual with the environment.  That's a
CHOICE, however, not an eventuality.  Just because I have something doesn't
mean I am going to abuse it.  If others abuse it, I cannot control that.
Should I come across a hiker using a cell phone and I don't care to share in
his conversation, I shall remove myself from the area.  I shall not sulk
away, feeling distraught that my sense of wilderness has been stolen from me
by technology.

At some point, raw distance becomes a factor.  If you drop me with a
satellite phone, a GPS unit, and a couple of weeks of supplies somewhere in
the Great White Abyss, I am no closer to civilization with the phone than
without it.  Even without cell or sat phones, on the AT, a hiker is almost
never a day's walk from a land line.  A hiker can have as much - or as
little - connection to civilization on the AT as he or she desires (or
doesn't desire).  The CHOICES that hiker makes on how that contact is
managed is the real issue.  Not any piece of technology.

Simply saying, "Cell phones bad." fails to address that completely.

"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinions;
it is easy in solitude to live after your own;
but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd
keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Shane