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:
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.
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
Comments like "poopies on the trail", "frog eating blockheads", and "magic gumdrop mountains" keep me coming back!
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.
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 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.
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".
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
"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.