If you already have an inclination to travel to Mongolia, this makes for an interesting "last straw" to justify going. I like the relative desolation of the American Midwest, in part because of the no-tech/no-connectivity of large swaths; any excuse to go there is appreciated.
Once that hurdle is cleared, going to such an extreme for disconnecting helps hammer home the point to the kid: cellular connectivity isn't just a few feet of separation from phone, or a few miles outside cell service, it's far enough that disconnection is absolute & profound - you can drive (not just walk) for days and still not get a connection.
The real horror is a society so deeply dependent on something they use so intimately yet so completely fail to understand. Getting kids "back to the Earth" is very important, full & complete disconnect from "technology" so they can grasp their own ability to live & thrive without it. Clarke: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"; we're there, and while the benefits are good, the psychological dependency & mystery isn't. Go somewhere distant from technology, forage/hunt food, make a meal over an open fire, and sleep under the stars - so vital for a child's psychological well-being.
[ETA: "Midwest" referring to roughly the boundary between central plains and Rocky Mountains.]
Where do you draw the line on technology? Are you hunting and foraging with your own hand made weapons? Is the tent you sleep in composed of furs? Technology is all around us, no matter how far you move or hide, and it seems arbitrary to draw the line at "cell phone bad", then argue that you need to get kids to go "back to the Earth". That's idealistic romanticism, and unless you're running around in leather skins with a wooden bow and hand woven string, it's all pretending that one can survive without the trappings of modern life.
>Where do you draw the line on technology? Are you hunting and foraging with your own hand made weapons? Is the tent you sleep in composed of furs? Technology is all around us, no matter how far you move or hide, and it seems arbitrary to draw the line at "cell phone bad", then argue that you need to get kids to go "back to the Earth"
Just because things aren't black or white and exactly measurable, there doesn't mean we can't make distinctions and decide qualitatively, or that if someone accepts technology X% then they need to accept it 100% and bend over backwards to whatever tech is popular...
The "slippery slope" argument than if you forego cell phone addiction you must also "hunt and foraging with your own hand made weapons" is also bad -- as if every new invention is an absolute must have, and people shouldn't live without it, or set their own criteria, lest they forego civilization entirely.
>That's idealistic romanticism, and unless you're running around in leather skins with a wooden bow and hand woven string, it's all pretending that one can survive without the trappings of modern life.
We survived for millennia without the "trappings of modern life", and we survived without commonly available cellphones even up to 1995 or so, and smartphones up to 1998 or so, so it's not like we absolutely must have them or are savages. Not having a smartphone at all or going on a mobile-diet is actually a thing in hacker circles, which are far from savages...
There are millions of people who do without this or other trappings by choice (not to mention billions by lack of money), who still do just fine.
In fact a couple of the richest people (ship owners level rich) I know use some crappy 20-year old style cellphone (not a smartphone) and avoid being arbitrarily reachable by others. It's not some luxury those "trappings of modern life" often it's the opposite: the passtime of slaves and necessary tools of working stiff to be easily found.
> We survived for millennia without the "trappings of modern life", and we survived without commonly available cellphones even up to 1995 or so, and smartphones up to 1998 or so, so it's not like we absolutely must have them or are savages.
You didn't describe a 1998 style of living, you described roughing it.
> Go somewhere distant from technology, forage/hunt food, make a meal over an open fire, and sleep under the stars - so vital for a child's psychological well-being.
Now you say:
> The "slippery slope" argument than if you forego cell phone addiction you must also "hunt and foraging with your own hand made weapons" is also BS -- as if every new invention is an absolute must have, and people shouldn't live without it, or set their own criteria, lest they forego civilization entirely.
That seems to be two entirely opposite things. If you want to say "cell phones bad", just say that - don't pretend it is because of a desire to be better and healthier for children.
>You didn't describe a 1998 style of living, you described roughing it.
You mean the grandparent did. What they said isn't about permanent living, but about something one can do as a kind of break, and they (and I for that matter) thinks beneficial for the children too: "Go somewhere distant from technology, forage/hunt food, make a meal over an open fire, and sleep under the stars - so vital for a child's psychological well-being."
We used to call those things "going cabing/fishing/hunting/backpacking in the wild" etc, back before 1995 and throughout the 20th century -- and we did them without cellphones or game consoles, and most things. Usually it was a great parent/kid bonding memory too. Sleeping under the stars, making a meal open an open fire, fishing/hunting for food and eating local stuff (from trees etc), were all perfectly normal. Heck, several people I know, in my age and younger (40 to 20-something) still do a lot of those things, go camping, etc. Are they considered inconceivable savagery today?
>That seems to be two entirely opposite things. If you want to say "cell phones bad", just say that - don't pretend it is because of a desire to be better and healthier for children.
You probably confused my response to your comment, to what the grandparent wrote first. Note however, that neither me, nor the grandparent mentioned anything about some permanent retreat from technology. Grandparent basically said - as I read it - "do this X things in nature, without technology, from time to time. It's good for you, and good for the children to learn those things and to not think they're nothing without technology".
That said, nor sure about the distinction you're making here: "If you want to say "cell phones bad", just say that - don't pretend it is because of a desire to be better and healthier for children.".
If I believe that cell phones are bad, I'd naturally also believe spending some time without them is better and healthier for children. So saying one or the other would be based on the same idea.
But you don't have to think "cell phones are bad". It's enough to think that cell phones are not only great, but also have downsides, or that however good cell phones are, one also needs to appreciate / be able to do without them too. It's about not being a slave to one's tech.
==That seems to be two entirely opposite things. If you want to say "cell phones bad", just say that - don't pretend it is because of a desire to be better and healthier for children.==
You clearly want them to say "cell phones bad", but I only see you using those words. One can engage in an activity for multiple purposes. I like to exercise in order to keep my weight down, but it also helps me sleep better and keeps my energy levels up.
Isn't it possible that cell phones as a whole are good, but too much cell p[hone usage is bad? Coffee has many positive benefits, but if you start to drink too much of it, the negative effects can overtake the positive benefits. Isn't it worth exploring where that line is when it comes to a device we keep with us at all times and use "over 4 hours a day" [1]?
I know people who are unable to navigate without their phones. If they spent some time in the wilderness, they would start to learn, intuitively, which direction is north, south, etc. They would learn how to read a map, including topo maps. They would start to learn how to create a mental map of their surroundings or at least remember where they had been. They would start learning what do when lost. All very helpful if the internet is down, their phone dies, or they get caught up in a natural disaster back in civilization.
That seems like two different use cases. While that helps you to tell direction, it doesn't help you navigate to 9134 Grocer Place, which is what I think most people use Google Maps for, and for which a topo map would be less than useless. Do you know people who Google Maps their way camping?
> Do you know people who Google Maps their way camping?
Yes. Google Maps has pretty good coverage of popular trails and topography and can be used if you have signal.
> it doesn't help you navigate to 9134 Grocer Place
It absolutely can if you have some familiarity with the area and no signal. If from previous experience, you generally know where Grocer Place is then finding 9134 just takes patience. You don't even need to have necessarily been to that specific street before if you have a mental map of the area.
> a topo map would be less than useless
For finding a street address, true. But knowing how to read a topo map helps someone learn how to read and navigate natural landmarks which can be helpful in a natural disaster scenario or in a city if they are lost and no signal. I invite you to spend some time orienteering, I think you'll start to understand where I am coming from.
>You don't even need to have necessarily been to that specific street before if you have a mental map of the area.
I, for one, am not going to waste my mental energy making a mental map of Houston. The city PROPER has an area of 670 mi^2, which is equivalent to fifteen San Francisco's. The metropolitan area is over 200 San Francisco's. I regularly drive 40 miles to get from one side of the city to another, for whatever particular errand I need to run that day. The Houston metro area is officially over 10,000 square miles - that's larger than (pick one): Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, or Maryland.
I'm not building a "mental map" of an area larger than the entire state of Massachusetts. Saying it's on par with the total area of the country of Switzerland would not be much of an exaggeration.
Maybe the city was different before cell phones. Maybe each neighborhood either had everything you needed or you just went without. Now, because GPS/Google Maps exist, the highest quality businesses pop up in super random spots around the city, and you'll never be able to have a clue how to get to them all without Google Maps.
"Back in the day" you didn't live in an integrated metropolis the size of Switzerland. But we do now...so the tools we need to enable that are now legitimately "needed" and non-optional. This very well may be hazardous to our health, but its not really an option.
> Yes. Google Maps has pretty good coverage of popular trails and topography and can be used if you have signal.
Ah, I was thinking back country - everywhere I've gone there's no signal, and if I'm front country, you can always just use the obvious trail markers.
Your use case for direction finding isn't relevant to an urban user. If you are familiar with the area, chances are you don't need a topo map, and you don't need to orienteer your way either - you'll understand the street numbers and landmarks. I'm also confused as to how using google maps affects your ability to become familiar with an area - I've found that by the 3rd time I've gone somewhere I no longer need maps at all, but I was using it up until then.
> I'm also confused as to how using google maps affects your ability to become familiar with an area - I've found that by the 3rd time I've gone somewhere I no longer need maps at all, but I was using it up until then.
Many people are naturally good at creating a mental map regardless of how they navigate initially. It sounds like you are one of them. However there are plenty of people who don't seem to have that innate skill. Wilderness orienteering experience would help those people. In my experience, it also helps everyone navigate in unfamiliar surroundings (urban or not) if they don't have signal. It is a form of transfer learning to use an ML analogy.
I'll load up Google Maps offline for the area, plus digital top maps, plus paper maps & GPS & compass, plus have an innate sense of area & direction. GM is most convenient (even with no connection).
That being a bit too long a jump for most people involved in my attempt, I want a progressive one-step-down on everything we use. Home > camper > tent > hammock > foliage > open ground. Stove > grill > campfire > fire drill. Canned food > MRE > dry goods > foraging > hunt/trap. Cheap gear > ultralight gear > iron/leather/wool gear > make your own out there.
The "cell phone bad" issue comes from a new generation fixated on a magic glass slate which mysteriously supplies nearly all their needs, able to conjure up food/shelter/transport/society with just a few taps on some runes - and the users have no idea how it works, nor what they would do without it. Even if they do indeed spend most of their lives relying on it, they must have enough competence & competence to be dropped anywhere in the country, with nothing, and confidently find their way back to safety & society. Too many can't even get home from school/work without a GPS & mapping app.
FWIW: I grew up on wood heat (northern US), raised half our own food, did own car repairs, sewed, had wood/metal/electronic/photo shops, etc. Modern luxuries are, well, luxurious but I aspire to a remote log cabin on a mountain lake with a Starlink connection.
That's ... kinda the point. You have a gigantic blind spot which, tautologically, you can't see. Traveling significant distances under your own power, carrying what you can and living off the land otherwise, being forced to learn how food comes from the earth, being forced to exercise your memory, would do you good in revealing & eliminating that blind spot.
Question is: what happens when those tools fail? How far down the technology stack can you function?
I'm not suggesting a large/dominating percentage of your time go to this. I am suggesting you (and the kids in question) go off-grid to see what extends beyond "today's world" and how others live in it without the tools you have.
Why? Are those tools going to fail? Are you going to destroy them?
Because here's the thing: if those tools fail, you die of dysentery.
Go enjoy the outdoors all you want if that's what you want to do, but this fantasy you're totally setting yourself up to survive...something? is just that - a fantasy.
> Even if they do indeed spend most of their lives relying on it, they must have enough competence & competence to be dropped anywhere in the country, with nothing, and confidently find their way back to safety & society.
Why? What use case are you thinking here? That's survivalist escapist fantasy stuff, nothing to do with the requirements of most modern living. Even in the case of the hypothetical EMP natural disaster, you're probably not in wilderness, you're in a major metropolis surrounded by people and navigating social dynamics will be more important than being able to sew a goat into a cape.
Because that assures sufficient skills for any situation, an awareness of supply chain providence all the way back to natural dirt, and self-confidence transcending anything life can throw at you.
Even the CDC has discovered "zombie apocalypse preparedness" as a means of ensuring people are trained to handle any situation. Sounds preposterous, yes, but in doing so you know you're ready.
The problem with modern living (now app-based) is that power, data, food, fuel, water, and/or money outages leave too many people quickly desperate. Can you quickly preserve the food in your fridge/freezer without electricity? Can you acquire clean water when the tap runs dry? Do you even know where your food/water comes from, and why that matters? This even extends into sociopolitical policy, regarding how governments redistribute taxes to people who ... wait for it ... are incapable of providing for their basic needs when bad things happen, because they don't know how to provide for basic needs when bad things happen.
It's raining outside right now. Have you ever, in earnest, gathered rainwater for drinking? ever even considered it seriously? How reliant on strangers are you for the most important necessity?
> Because that assures sufficient skills for any situation, an awareness of supply chain providence all the way back to natural dirt, and self-confidence transcending anything life can throw at you.
Unless of course it's a modern problem requiring communicating with someone a thousand miles away.
I have no idea how you think a metropolitan centre of millions people, even if all trained in wilderness survival skills, would be able to sustain themselves. They couldn't - there's no way you could feed everyone in a major city by foraging or by killing all the rats or finding wild mushrooms. And I guess you could try to navigate out of city by foot, but you're hoping you're going to be able to outrun the general diaspora.
I still have no idea what apocalypse you're planning for - it's something that you don't have water for, but you do have reliable power, or a generator you'll trust to function after whatever happens. Or you don't plan for any of that, but just assume you can do whatever you need at any time, like a Bear Grylls James Bond.
Understanding how a cell phone works won't help you if you're reduced to stone age tech. Even "iron" would have a hard step to get to with nothing. Stone age man didn't have cell phones not just because they didn't know how to build one, there's layers and layers of society that are relied on in order to work towards modern society.
> And if you understand the complete technology stack, you'll reconsider living in a metropolitan centre.
Only if I assume some survivalist power fantasy fiction will come to pass.
> Can you quickly preserve the food in your fridge/freezer without electricity?
What do you even mean by this?
"The power is out kids! Start a bonfire in the front yard, we're making pemmican and jerky!"
In all seriousness, I've been through a number of multi-day power outages. You leave the door to your fridge/freezer shut as much as possible. When you open it, you make it infrequent and fast. They are well insulated, things stay cold for a long time.
> probably not in wilderness, you're in a major metropolis surrounded by people and navigating social dynamics will be more important than being able to sew a goat into a cape.
I think going "back to the earth" is on a continuum. I don't think we need to revert to stone knives and bearskins to give kids a perspective on how far removed (and yet still how close) we are from those times.
Their having had the experience of disconnect from modern resources, it may be easier for them to realize how fragile our systems are. Like, "Remember how it felt when we were hiking in remotelocation without electricity? What if our electricity went out for a month at home because of an earthquake? What do you think would happen to (us, our neighbors, our town, etc.)?"
Even a minimal "back to the earth" experience can be educational.
This sort of trite opinion is constantly trotted out when someone criticizes technology. Technology is a word, it doesn’t represent anything inherently. It’s perfectly reasonable to be critical of one form of technology and laudatory of another.
> The real horror is a society so deeply dependent on something they use so intimately yet so completely fail to understand. Getting kids "back to the Earth" is very important, full & complete disconnect from "technology" so they can grasp their own ability to live & thrive without it. Clarke: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"; we're there, and while the benefits are good, the psychological dependency & mystery isn't. Go somewhere distant from technology, forage/hunt food, make a meal over an open fire, and sleep under the stars - so vital for a child's psychological well-being.
That seems pretty far down the "no tech" rabbit hole by being critical of pretty much all technology.
Last summer, family vacation. Tetons-Yellowstone-Glacier-Badlands region in particular, scenic backroads also. Was surprised at how extensive coverage (down to 3G) was, but there were large areas of zero connectivity as well. That's overlooking lack of wifi hotspots lest my cell tethering data cap run out. Kids were subject to >week of no TV/data/games, having no internet and no power (solar-gathered electricity used only for lighting & mapping).
From that perspective, methinks Starlink.com will contribute to significant population shifts, making such low/no-connectivity areas viable to those dependent on internet connectivity. I'd move to that region quick were data fast & reliable.
[ETA: "Midwest" as in "west side of mid" a la broad boundary of central plains and Rocky Mountains.]
Also, there is a distinct inter-mountain west between the Rockies and the Sierra/Cascades. Utah isn't really in the Southwest and Eastern WA/OR isn't really in the PNW but close enough.
The Midwest is Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, maybe Minnesota...anything in the mountain time zone is not the Midwest, it is often called the inter mountain west, and covers anything from inland California though Colorado.
Wyoming and Montana are definitely not in the Midwest, and I’d even argue that the Western South Dakota where the Badlands are should be considered the Mountain West as well. The majority of the Midwest is far more populated than this region
Those places have no cell service because nobody lives there, not the other way around. The number of people who would gladly live in the middle of nowhere if only there was internet available is miniscule and basically consists entirely of people who do remote work (because there are no jobs in the middle of nowhere).
Once that hurdle is cleared, going to such an extreme for disconnecting helps hammer home the point to the kid: cellular connectivity isn't just a few feet of separation from phone, or a few miles outside cell service, it's far enough that disconnection is absolute & profound - you can drive (not just walk) for days and still not get a connection.
The real horror is a society so deeply dependent on something they use so intimately yet so completely fail to understand. Getting kids "back to the Earth" is very important, full & complete disconnect from "technology" so they can grasp their own ability to live & thrive without it. Clarke: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"; we're there, and while the benefits are good, the psychological dependency & mystery isn't. Go somewhere distant from technology, forage/hunt food, make a meal over an open fire, and sleep under the stars - so vital for a child's psychological well-being.
[ETA: "Midwest" referring to roughly the boundary between central plains and Rocky Mountains.]