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

[shane at theplacewithnoname.com (Shane Steinkamp)]

> You might
> want to say you answered the points, but I hope people notice that you
didn't
> - and couldn't answer those simple questions I gave you.

You just need to pay better attention, Rocks, instead of engaging your
selective hearing.

Let's have another go, shall we?

>        1)    How do cell phones change the physical Trail? (ie increased
> shuttle activity and cell phone induced access points) Demographic:
(Increased
> usage by cell phone lifeline types who then skip the rest of what the
Trail's
> about?)    - You didn't answer this.

I very clearly answered this question previously.

Cell phones do not change the physical trail.  They do not alter one blade
of grass.  If you put a cell phone on a rock out in the middle of nowhere
for a few days, it won't do anything.  It's a device, not an animate agent.
People change the trail.  Cell phones can't.

I challenge you to answer the demographic question by finding one person who
can say, "I was never interested in hiking the trail, but once I got a cell
phone, I suddenly decided to try it."

I'm not sure what a 'cell phone induced access point' is.  Trailheads are
trailheads.  Road crossings are road crossings.  People will use them, or
they won't use them.  The existence of cellular phones doesn't change the
location of trailheads or road crossings.

>        2)   How cell phones change the hike experience? (ie being able to
> call out at any time, or knowing you can.) (Also, how daily contact
changes the
> extended feeling of remoteness) - Unanswered.

I very clearly answered this question previously.

I can't answer the question for other people.  I can only answer the
question for myself.  For myself, cell phones do not change my hiking
experience.  I do not have daily contact with anyone except fellow hikers.
I may check in every third or fourth day.  Other hikers are far more
intrusive than this on my extended feeling of remoteness.

>        3)    How cell phone acceptance as a part of hiking gear changes
the
> whole attitude of how people perceive the AT from the outside. Is the
Trail
> seen as a truly wild place and challenge at that point, or is it now tamed
by
> quick communications allowing quick outside contact with remote sections
of the
> Trail?   Get this straight Shane, we are not just talking how this effects
you
> or your feelings, we are talking about all things involved INCLUDING the
AT
> and it's condition. (Totally avoided)

Check again.  Very clearly answered.

I'll quote it directly:

"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."

Maybe you can tell me which parts of that you don't understand?

>       4)     And most importantly, how cell phone proliferation by plain
> numbers leads to an inertia that displaces important Trail concepts
literally
> existing in writing in ATC's Guidelines. "Disconnectedness" is literally
written
> in plain words in the guidelines. Explain to me how the overt
'connectedness' a
> cell phone provides jibes with this main Trail goal?

I have never said that it did.

What I have said is that cell phones do not affect my sense of
disconnectedness.

If this is truly your concern, then you're working on the wrong problem.
You should be working to take the towers down.  Without the towers, the
phones are just a few ounces of useless electronics.

>             I already know what you will say Shane. You'll answer that not
> everybody feels the same way about connectedness and it should be left up
to
> them according to HYOH. But that's just crap.

Well, RNR, I haven't used 'HYOH' in ANY of these posts.  It's not a
philosophy I particularly ascribe to.  You're perfectly happy to rail
against it in this context, but I haven't spoken about it at all.

> The fatal flaw in your argument and
> approach - and one universally shared by every cell phone advocate - is
you
> completely ignore how this affects the TRAIL. Your attempt to steer this
into
> the contrived people issue is only a way of avoiding how cell phones
> objectively impact the Trail and it's purpose. The danger and false
promise of your
> philosophy is that the AT could be losing its wildness while you are
satisfied
> with your partial viewpoint. And, by sheer travesty, get approval from the
AT
> mugwhamp set only interested in HYOH pollyannism.

I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.  I have never said or
implied any such thing.  You keep wanting to talk about the evils of a
device.  A battery powered two way radio and how evil it is.  How
destructive it is.  What I'm trying to talk about is the broader
relationships that involve people.  This is a PEOPLE problem, not a cell
phone problem.  Just because you take away the phone, deYou seem to be blind
to that, and you offer no solution.  The solution I have offered is to
examine the relationships we have to wilderness, and try to enter into a
discussion about how we can change the attitudes and values of people who do
not cherish natural treasures.

All I've really gotten from you in return is name calling, accusations, and
stonewalling.

That's not really an effective way to change hearts and minds.

The simple fact is that 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.

> I'm trying to avoid personal
> remarks, but as I recall, you haven't even set foot on the Trail yet you
are now
> writing new terms for it.

Yeah, I guess I'm a total noob compared to you.  I must be too stupid to
apply at least 15,000 miles of wilderness walking to 2,000 miles of it that
I haven't walked.

Shane