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

[RoksnRoots at aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

In a message dated 8/4/2005 2:04:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
rafeb@speakeasy.net writes:
*
*
*
Increased shuttle activity?  
And, please, what is a "phone induced access point"?

            ***   I don't have the inclination to take the days and months it 
would take to track down all forms of physical changes to the Trail caused by 
cell phones. This would be best for an environmental sciences thesis, but I 
assure you they are many and more pervasive than you realize. Yes, increased 
shuttle activity. One example is the Gorham area where people now slack-hike a 
day and cell phone back for pick-up. I'm not going to argue the "who says 
slackpacking is bad or a lesser form" canards. They are besides the point. Honest 
people arguing objectively would admit these previously remote areas are now 
accessed by cell phone-networked shuttles. The indisputable fact is that these 
areas are now more civilized and the previous state of wildness and remoteness 
is lessened. This is the hard wiring working. These firm Trail facts cannot be 
legitimately answered by "Puhleeeze!" comments. We've discussed this at least 
a half dozen times over the years.

        Specifically, a "cell phone-induced access point" is any place on the 
Trail where cell phone use encourages intrusive activity where it did not 
exist before. Pizzas to shelters, regular drop-off and pick-up points arranged by 
cell phone. You might say "what kind of a cranky nitpicker would worry about 
that?" The truth is these areas are now more mechanically accessed and serve 
to lessen the Trail's previous state of wildness. That's the hard wiring 
working. People naturally try to avoid discomfort caused by natural impositions, but 
the whole idea of the Trail is to create those impositions in order to walk 
through them for wilderness experience. The message the Trail Community is 
sending is "give us comfort and quick communications for mechanized access". The 
second message is discourage and ostracize anyone who speaks about this. The 
value of designed wildness is left unmentioned.

  

        
Being able to talk with my wife is bad in what way?

"Extended feeling of remoteness" is a fine goal, but
let's be clear:  I want to be remote from the crappy
things in life.  Cars.  Noise.  Work.  Not my wife.

How long is "extended", anyway?  It's hard to walk
more than two or three days on the AT before the
real world intrudes.  There was no remoteness to
speak of in the seven miles from RPH Shelter to
the I-84 crossing.  The AT utterly failed in its mission
in that stretch.


               ***    It's good to know that after discussing this at least a 
dozen times over many years we are right back to the same questions. 

            I'm sure your wife is a nice person, but if I was to choose 
between a meaningful AT wilderness ethic and your wife, well. If you read your 
argument it both claims that there isn't that much wilderness, yet claims you need 
to bring a cell phone in order to call your wife. Something doesn't match 
there Rafe.

                The problem with the majority of cell phone debaters is, 
whether they realize it, they are arguing a pro-cell phone, -anti-wildness 
argument. "I never said I was anti-wildness". - You didn't have to. Not a single one 
of them touches the pro-wilderness ethic side. It simply isn't in their 
vocabulary. I suppose most of these people just bring a cell phone without giving it 
any thought and are defending themselves against what they see to be wrongful 
accusations. But everything we've written still holds true and a choice is 
being made. The result is unarguably a less wild Trail. It doesn't matter how 
you justify it. Truth is, I suspect you probably don't care if it was.  

               




Pfft.  I don't really give a hoot about how people
perceive the AT from the outside.  They don't matter
to me unless they're on the trail or involved with the trail.


           ***   Well this is just plain ignorance. The thoughts of the 
people making the decisions about the next huge development or race track are 
directly related to the future of the AT. We could have a long talk about what 
would have happened if a Trail-aware person was on the Pennsylvania planning board 
or somewhere in the capitol. But your last passage is just irresponsible. One 
of THE most important things right now for the Appalachian Trail is how 
people perceive it from the outside.


          




I presume when you speak of "disconnectedness" and
"ATC Guidelines" you're referring to this: http://tinyurl.com/9fdef


I take this document to be a set of goals and ideals for the
Trail, rather than as strict rules of behavior.


         ***   You can count on pro-cell phone members to try to weaken the 
interpretation of the Guidelines in order to proceed with their anti-wilderness 
ethic viewpoint. I guarantee you that set of way-too-vague guidelines is 
derived from MacKaye, and even the present actions ATC takes, like removing 
commercial presence and buffering the Trail. Your viewpoint works best by ignoring 
the otherwise open and apparent about the AT.

          This is a serious example of the worst effects of cell phones. They 
cause people to discount or ignore iron-clad ATC-level Trail goals. Just as 
you are doing here. That is exactly why they are so insidious and why I force 
the subject so much. In order to endorse cell phone use on the Trail you can 
plainly see people will go and try to weaken the ATC Guidelines or their 
significance. Baxter is comprised of state personnel dedicated to preserving Baxter's 
goals. It does not rely on a free-for-all forum to protect it's goals. 
Therefore it is not surprising they banned cell phones. You'll never see cell phone 
promos admitting that.

            Your gloss-over didn't work Rafe. "Disconnectedness" is 
disconnectedness. Your snubbing of the guidelines and their purpose doesn't overcome 
the fact that cell phones are the direct opposite of that, and nothing you said 
changes it. So it can legitimately be said that cell phone promos work 
directly against the Guidelines. Most don't care.






  Odd, but I
haven't heard you speak of this item from the same list:

    "Opportunities to experience the cultural, historical, and
    pastoral elements of the surrounding countryside."

-- which would seem to set limits on the "detachment from
civilization".


         ***    Maybe we can work in something that weakens the wilderness 
ethic. For what purpose Rafe? That statement is irrelevant because they are 
talking about rural atmosphere and farms etc. 





For most of us, "recreation" means enjoyment,
relaxation, and comfort -- not necessarily the hair-shirt,
self-denying, character-building experience that you
think it ought to be.


              ***   No, Rafe, It's clear some grasp the importance of this 
and some don't. You are forcing too much semantic interpretation on that. 
"Recreation" simply means "non-work" in this context. There are plenty of valid AT 
references clearly spelling out the wilderness ethic plan, - but they should be 
obvious anyway. It is literally true that the cell phone could be the fork in 
the road for the AT. Unfortunately, it appears a stampede of disinterested 
are taking the fork towards a more civilized and less wild Trail. They have an 
unlimited set of justifications to support this. None of them involve any 
discussion of (correct context) AT facts or background...  






*