Skip to main content

A Brilliantly Successful Group Hike

Rumors are floating around that several RV bloggers were recently involved in an outdoorsy comedy-of-errors: a hike full of mistakes and misadventures. Oh sure it seemed like that at the time. But without any undue contrarianism or facetiousness, I'm here to tell you that it was a great success, and is worthy of emulation.

There is one bit of facetiousness that I would like to play with: instead of ridiculing the "Naturalistic Fallacy", I would like to pretend that I agree with it, that is, that everything "natural" is "good", and unnatural is bad.  I am going to argue that misadventure during an outing, whatever be the cause, brings on a more natural -- and better -- experience. 

Consider first how unnatural hiking is. What natural purpose does it serve? None that I can see.  Is this not ironic, considering the demographic and self-image of hikers? They see themselves as environmentally-correct nature lovers. They think that their sport is the "greenest" of all outdoors sports, despite the fact that half the sport is driving a motor vehicle to the trailhead. (Some outdoorsmen, like runners, walkers, and bicyclists are not guilty of that syndrome.)

Hikers are for the most part college-educated office workers from large metropolitan areas. It is beyond their imagination to see Nature as providing the sustenance for the animal species known as homo sapiens. It's OK if any other animal species makes an honest living off of Nature -- but not homo sapiens.

If, instead of purposeless and useless hiking, we were walking along with a bow and arrow or a spear, and killing something, that would be the perfect natural outdoors activity. Similarly if we were being chased by large predators. But ironically the stereotypical hiker is anti-gun and anti-hunting, and probably vegetarian to boot. If the homo sapiens hunter was being helped by a horse or a dog, they would see that as "ickie" because those animal species might leave poopies on the hiking trail. Apparently they believe that other animal species don't defecate.

The natural experience of a stereotypical hiker is actually quite sterile and phony. It consists of nothing but consuming visual entertainment. Ogling postcard scenery.
________________________________________

Now then, let's see how this supposedly goofed-up hike was actually a success. "Mistakes" such as forgetting cellphones, not bringing GPS, forgetting to bring enough water, and splitting-up had a real benefit: they reminded us of how precious water is in the Southwest, and how everything revolves around this issue. 

Splitting up? That "mistake" reminded us how weak an individual specimen of homo sapiens is. The species has survived because of its sociability, communication skills, and adaptability. These were exactly the qualities that we were forced to practice when things went wrong. For pity sakes, Nature is about surviving hardship, rather than gamboling through the magic gumdrop mountains and rhapsodizing about pretty butterflies or silly wildflowers.

Consider how this comedy of errors forced us to confront the fundamental non-truths that have overtaken society the last 200 years. Consider that humorless, virginal, domestic-terrorist-praising, Yankee blockhead, Henry David Thoreau. His essay on "Walking" starts off thusly:
I wish to speak a word for Nature, for absolute freedom and wildness, as contrasted with a freedom and culture merely civil -- to regard man as an inhabitant, or a part and parcel of Nature, rather than a member of society.
Nice try, Hank, but you blew it. He is imagining homo sapiens as living in a state of complete solitude when he is in "harmony with nature." Clearly he was reading the same junk-anthropology books as that frog-eating blockhead, Jean Jacques Rousseau, who starts off his famous "Social Contract" with:
THE most ancient of all societies, and the only one that is natural, is the family.
Oh really? I guess tribal villages and hunting partners are unnatural? Did Rousseau not see that it was perfectly natural for one hunter to borrow a tool from another tribal member, and to submit to certain expectations because of this transaction.

Seriously folks, it is thought-provoking and profoundly satisfying to see walking outdoors as a real thing, a serious thing, rather than mere entertainment for a scenery tourist. It makes the natural experience more authentic.

Comments

John V said…
Speak for yourself on that "stereotypical hiker" thing. Most of the hikers we hang out with are pro-gun, pro-hunting, pro-alcohol, pro-dog and pro paleo diet in all it's beef, wild game, and fresh fish glory! My kind of people :-)

Comments like "poopies on the trail", "frog eating blockheads", and "magic gumdrop mountains" keep me coming back!
You hang out with atypical hikers! It would be too easy to describe the hiker stereotype to 3 or 4 decimal points of accuracy, but I leave that as an exercise to the reader.
Bon vivant said…
I'm an avid hiker and while I'll admit that most I've hiked with are citified, college educated office workers, and many were only there to find a partner, the ones that I hiked with repeatedly were fit, older, generally in their mid to late 30's or older, knowledgeable about the outdoors in all it's respects and it was more about fitness to us than the scenery. The last great hike I did in the Northwest included miles of bushwhacking, several thousand feet of elevation, about 20 miles or so and required the entire day. You learn about your friends after a day like that. Even if you don't have a majestic view from the summit.
Walden Creek RV said…
I will take Thoreau any day! sorry Boonie!
Well, Walden Creek, I will admit that, from time to time, Thoreau comes up with a potent thought and sentence!
"...more about fitness to us than the scenery." Is that because people who do something frequently need to hit it in a way that keeps challenging them? Fitness is always challenging, whereas the pleasures of scenery are short-lived.
XXXXX said…
Walking was the original form of locomotion, so any attempt to downgrade it in any fashion seems quite silly. If it wasn't for our modern privileged lifestyle, we wouldn't have the luxury of filling our days with some form of exercise, most probably done for two main reasons: to improve our health and longevity and to reduce boredom.
What does the reason matter? No matter whether we are playing "Master and Commander" , looking for picture-perfect postcards, or pretending we are walking along with bow and arrow, seeking signs of potential game by the scat along the way we are all simply fighting boredom and filling our days, only to come home to our computers to engage in hair-splitting conversations such as this one. We all have the luxury of too much time and too little real work.
My goodness, George, somebody needs a nappie. (grin)

Finding avenues to Authentic human experiences outdoors is more than just hair-splitting. The purpose of this blog is to climb out of the gutter of tourist-level travel experiences and find something serious and real. Overcoming danger through tribal teamwork was a good example of a higher level of experience.
I was poking fun at "hiking", not at walking. Hiking is what happens when mere bipedal locomotion (walking) is combined with cultural and ideological baggage characteristic of modern, suburban, PC, post-industrial, office workers.
XXXXX said…
Didn't mean to sound abrupt. My apologies. I was in a hurry. That'll teach me.
I agree that there is a real difference between tribal teamwork when it was a survival or life and death situation but we're just playing now. I do see your point that there really were no errors on the hike as described, everything that went "wrong" just added to the sense of adventure, danger, etc. and fun. I got that.
edlfrey said…
This posting with the Comments caused me to question what is the difference between walking and hiking and what have I been doing.

Wikipedia's definition of hiking : Hiking is a form of walking, undertaken with the specific purpose of exploring and enjoying the scenery. It usually takes place on trails in rural or wilderness areas.

Diference Between . com explains it this way: Dictionaries say that hiking is a long walk undertaken for pleasure. This definition certainly equates hiking with walking, but it does not make clear as to when walking becomes hiking. Is it just pleasure, walking in natural surroundings, carrying a backpack on your back that constitutes hiking or there is something more that makes walking hiking? It has to do with trails that are unpaved, it all boils down to the terrain where the person is spending his time that decides whether he is walking or hiking.

Neither of these helped me much although they seem to agree that hiking is walking for enjoyment/pleasure. They also both seem to place hiking in rural areas and hint that flat land routes are walking. This appears to be supported by Google Searches on Walking Across America having far more hits than Hiking Across America. However, the American Discovery Trail is described as a hiking trail that is 6,800 miles long stretching across America that includes cities, small towns and certainly some flat lands.

So perhaps I was wise when I selected PEREGRINATE to describe what I do. I travel from place to place by foot and that avoids the distinctions made between walking and hiking. I can peregrinate for pleasure or for the pleasure of Patches or to go for breakfast or... you get the idea. I can even do it with other people from time to time and enjoy that experience as well.
I consider what you do to be "walking," since it is bipedal locomotion aimed at some meaningful purpose or sustenance. And your dog always has sustenance in mind, whether she scores or not.

To me hiking is bipedal locomotion that has been taken over by the tourism industry, is aimed at visual entertainment, and is a manifestation of mainstream metropolitan culture.

The point of this post was to praise a "hike" that had achieved a higher level of existence, a purposeful "walk".
Fit Forlife said…
Enjoy your blog, you post interesting stuff and like that you are into exercise which I am too.
I would like to comment about your impression of hikers.
You shouldn't paint all of us with such a broad brush. I hike because I love it. I also bike because I love it. Based on the situation I choose my method of adventure. And guess what, I am a paleo eating, middle of the road in political and social views type of person!
Biking is no different than hiking IMO.
Biking slows down the world when it comes to experiencing your surroundings compared to cars where you go at a slower pace and can go through trails that a car cannot do.
Hiking is just one step slower than biking where you get to experience your surroundings at a much slower pace and go through trails that a car or bike cannot do.
One doesn't make the other any better or any worse.
Living in South Florida I don't get to experience hiking the way I want to. So I bike most of the time down here. However, I am nature lover and when I take my yearly vacation to go out west, I choose hiking. It helps me absorb my surroundings at a slow pace to nourish my mind and soul.
Now if I lived out west, I would do both, it has nothing to do with tourism, at least for me anyways.
Anyways, keep up the great work, one day I will be out there full timing out in the boonies as well.... G
"it has nothing to do with tourism..." Aw come on, now!

"biking is no different than hiking..." My eyes are rolling! Bicycling appeals to our inner Rampaging-Warrier. Hiking appeals to our inner puritan drudge. Or maybe our inner Donkey. (naughty grin.)

I too let the land and the road conditions tell me whether to bicycle or walk.

Thanks for your well-written comment. Please don't be offended by my combativeness. It's all just good clean fun.
Fit Forlife said…
Not at all Boonie. I always enjoy thought provoking discussions. It stimulates me and thus one of the reasons why I follow you. It makes me think.