Hacker News Reader

Comment by stevesearer | Hacker News Reader

I preemptively mourn that at some point people will be able to text, stream shows, and have video calls from even the deepest wilderness areas.

It is great that there are official wilderness areas that are off limits to technology such are drones and even bicycles. I kind of wish there was a way to digitally fence those areas off to some degree as well though as a fellow inReach user I know how useful some tech can be.

View on HN

Preventing wireless communication, even in wilderness areas seems like a bad idea. I remember a Reddit post many years ago (back when the concept of a internet post from the middle of nowhere was novel) from a bush pilot in Alaska. His plane had some sort of failure (not a crash) that left him stuck in the wilderness. But he had satellite internet that not only let him call for rescue, it let him pass the time by posting about the experience on Facebook and Reddit.

I think this lament gets to the heart of the article's argument. The problem isn't that we'll eventually be able to connect everywhere. It's that being online is harmful or intrusive enough to need an escape.

The call to action is too work towards a future of technology where we don't need to escape to improve our mental health and experience of nature.

When I leave my house to go to the grocery store I have to make an active concerted effort to not compulsively check my phone.

When I head out to the wilderness it does not take the same level of active effort to not compulsively use my phone.

Same, and that gets to the heart of it. Out phones have been engineered to encourage constant novelty and engagement. That's a systemic issue. Leaving a phone behind is a individual solution. This article argues (eventually) for a systemic solution.

The article fails by being condescending towards individual solutions instead of acknowledging them as a helpful stopgap

Reply on news.ycombinator.com