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

[shane at theplacewithnoname.com (Shane Steinkamp)]

> A cell phone is a link to civilization that changes 
> the dynamics of the trail far more than a simple 
> passive radio or a technical modern backpacking 
> stove. Instant communication with the outside world 
> is what has changed with the proliferation of the 
> devices. 

You're going to have to explain to me how listening to civilization on a radio is less intrusive than talking back.  Receiving information, IMO, is much more intrusive than sending it.

> Humans have always sought comfort in the wilds. 
> Humans have always carried books and sought 
> companions. A radio is simply a more technical and 
> more up to date way of receiving information, 
> while in wild places. Of course a radio is also a 
> distraction, which is why I rarely carry one any 
> more. But it is not the distraction a cell phone 
> provides, or the crutch that a cell phone provides. 
> Just the knowledge that 911 is just seconds away 
> -- or may be if the location provides reception -- 
> makes modern backpacking a significantly different 
> experience. YMMV.

Well, I addressed that in my (admittedly lengthy) post earlier.  If what you're saying is true, then the opposite must be true.  If you go into your back yard without your cell phone, that must make your back yard a wilder place.  I don't think that's logical.  

The network exist.  Cell phones exist.  Banning them is a bandaid measure.  It's make-believe.  "Let's not bring our cell phones and pretend that it's a wilder place than it really is."  I don't see how that helps.  

I think we need to address the initial part of your response above.  It shouldn't be "what do we do about the phones", it should be, "what do we do about people's attitudes".  The phone is the symptom, not the cause.

Shane