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

[ellen at clinic.net (Bob C)]

"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."

Jeez, Shane. Of course a backyard without a cell phone is a wilder place, but only infintesimally so. Why? Well, lacking a phone, in a back yard emergency one need only walk inside to the wired version, yell at the neighbor next door, flag down a passing car....

Part of the challenge of the trail used to be that in an emergency one had to figure out a way to survive without serious mishap on their own -- or wait until someone came along to seek help. Now one need only make a phone call, which is, of course, mostly why people carry them.

But as several have pointed out, the greater safety -- and greater ability to talk with folks at home, order a pizza, check the stock market, chit chat... comes at a price. These intrusions of "civilization" make the trail experience less wild. A safer place, surely. But also a place where a disconnection with civilization is less likely to occur.

As you may have discovered, most of life's decisions involve trade offs. Saunterer recognizes this. He tells us he doesn't want a disconnect -- well, I think that is what he is claiming. Others deny that carrying the crutch of a cell phone involves a trade off.

I can only report on my experiences. It's admittedly hard to avoid distractions in the crowded east. I've told you a couple of ways that have worked for me. Canoeing a wild river for 10 days with no phones and no stops for resupply, and hiking with a nine-year-old for 30 days with no stops for resupply.  

For those who think think this is illogical, I can only suggest they try these experiences for themselves twice -- once with a phone, once without. 

Weary