[at-l] RnR's *worthwhile* cell phone questions

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

Speak for yourself. When you say it "affects YOUR hike" you assume that 
what is true for you is true for everyone. You also imply that lack of 
consideration for the feelings of loved ones is important to  feeling 
disconnected. If you said that being inconsiderate of other hikers in the 
way you use a CF, I'd be right there with you. It is ironic that you defend 
being inconsiderate to loved ones but (I assume) would not defend 
inconsiderate behavior toward strangers who happened to be in close 
proximity. This argument ends up saying that virtually every piece of gear 
we carry is a barrier between us and a deep wilderness experience.

That all depends on your definition of wilderness and the definition of a 
deep wilderness experience. As Shane has pointed out wilderness is a human 
concept. It's definition varies according to the society and even the 
individual. At one time in England an unkept area of a garden was referred 
to as a wilderness. In colonial America it was something to be feared and 
conquered. Shane says he goes out not to confront 'wilderness' but to be a 
natural human in nature. I tend toward the same idea though I use different 
words because to me 'wilderness' implies that humans don't belong there. I 
see myself as a natural creature, as much a part of the natural world as 
any other animal or as it says in the Desiderata, I am "a child of the 
universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you (I) have a right to be 
here."

As for an admission that I don't *need* it, the truth is I don't *need* 
anything with me to go to the woods. I could drink from streams and pools. 
I could eat berries and roots. I could kill a deer and wrap myself in the 
hide. I could choose to freeze or starve to death. There's a genuine 
'wilderness' experience for you that happens to our fellow creatures on a 
daily basis. Or I could turn around and go home before I was in danger of 
that. So which is of more value? Which allows for greater depth of 
experience? Carrying those things that allow one to feel sufficiently safe 
to remain in the natural world or deliberately putting one's self at risk 
so that there is temptation to go home?

The implication of the statement that sparked this debate was that the 
presence of a CF not only 'affected' the hike but did so in a negative way, 
preventing the hiker from achieving a 'quality' experience. The problem I 
have with that notion is the assumptions that underlie it:
    * That everyone views the natural world in terms of 'wilderness'
    * That everyone carries a CF for similar reasons and regards it as a 
crutch
    * That a CF, to a greater extent than say a tent or sleeping bag, will 
insulate the hiker from nature, thus its mere presence is a bad thing 
relative to having 'a wilderness experience'.
My point has been to challenge those assumptions which I regard as untrue.

At 10:05 PM 8/4/2005 -0700, Robert wrote:
>I do believe this changes the hike experience. There is a solitude that is 
>not completely captured if you hike with a cell phone. It isn't enough to 
>say, "well, I don't let it affect my hike." The fact is that in the 
>recesses of your mind, you know the phone is there. You brought it for a 
>reason. That reason has something to do with your peace of mind. Even if 
>you brought it for what you consider someone else's peace of mind 
>(spouse/parents/children/boss) you're mind is also put at ease by knowing 
>that they aren't worrying about you, that they aren't going to rip your 
>head off for not having it, or because they may call you at a low point 
>and lift your spirits. There certainly is something that happens when you 
>have to fend for yourself. If you are on your own and far enough away from 
>civilization, you may have to make some decisions by yourself. For 
>instance, if you were thinking about leaving the trail, alone you might 
>give up. Your hike over, you would pack out of the wild
>  erness
>  and go home. However, with a cell phone inside your pack, you might call 
> someone for some words of encouragement and end up staying on the trail. 
> Now let's say you didn't have the cell phone, but mustered the courage to 
> stay on the trail on your own. I think that would be a bit more rewarding 
> (emphasis on I THINK). Now, let's say that you mustered the courage 
> without calling home, but you had the phone. The phone would always be 
> there saying, "hey if you ever need me, I'm right here," and that would 
> most likely affect your hike. Mind you, this is all in your head and the 
> degree to which it would affect you would be different than anyone else, 
> but to say it wouldn't affect you at all I believe is false. There is a 
> reason why phones are taken away from people when they are being taught 
> survival skills and the like. There is a lot you won't learn if you have 
> a life-line. Part of what you won't learn is what it's like to be without 
> a life-line. To say that your hike isn't affect
>  ed by it
>  is to admit that you don't need it, so why carry it? If your answer is 
> anything like, "to make it easier," "to call for pick up at a trail 
> head," "to call my *insert title here*, "to use in case of emergency," by 
> design you have affected your hike. Now whether you think this is 
> positive or negative is another thing. The fact is that cells, radios, 
> stoves, and a host of other things have the effect of denying you a more 
> deep wilderness experience. This does not mean that you won't love it. In 
> fact some people hate deep wilderness experiences. I don't see Paris 
> Hilton enjoying even a simple hike unless it was down 5th Avenue to get 
> to Saks, and even then she'd probably be complaining if she had to walk. 
> Creature comforts give you some semblance of home. It's why we take them 
> with us. Whether it's a book to read, a radio to listen to, a cool mini 
> stove to make hot meals, even a spork for those tricky noodle soups, it's 
> going to affect your hike.