SummitPost.org

So I recently saw this movie "Into The Wild". Lets say you have a choice of living in civilization with all the conveniences or living in some remote location in the wilderness living of the land. What would you rather do?

Its fairly clear what everyone here wants to do. If they wanted to live in the wilderness, it isn't that expensive, maybe even free. But there's no internet access.

Wilderness for sure. But unfortunately I can't make my husband move out into the middle of nowhere, no matter how hard I try! I would be one of those crazy hermit types for sure. But since I can't I'll just have to become one of those crazy old cat ladies that you see on the news...

I'd rather live in a small, no-stoplights town at the edge of wilderness, like some of the little towns in northwestern Wyoming. There's no way I'd have the knowledge or resourcefulness to survive long-term in the wild, and even if I did, I don't know how I'd pass the down time.

But a little town without much materialism and hurry, with mountains beckoning from Main Street-- yeah, I could go for that. I'd be happy never to see a city or suburb again.

If you live in wilderness, it ceases to be wilderness. One of the definitions of wilderness is that man's presence in it is temporary. From the Wilderness Act of 1964:

"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."

Personally, I think it is better for people to live relatively densely in cities, and then visit the mountains. People living "in the mountains," or having a "mountain lifestyle" has lead to the needless over-development of many mountain areas. (Examples are numerous, but the first place to come to mind is the foothills of the Front Range in Colorado.) Everyone wants there own slice of paradise. But if paradise is sliced up, it ceases to be paradise.

Just my two cents.

Mark

If you're living there, it ain't wilderness.

(At least according to the Wilderness Act of 1964. )

On a different note: on the way back from a weekend trip, I drove past a housing development in Kentucky called "Wilderness Estates." It was at the edge of a large town on the Cumberland Plateau, in typical Kentucky farmland.

You wouldn't have to worry about having something to do if you were truly trying to live, let's say, away from civilization. You would be busy trying to grow enough food and maintain your home (gathering wood, building furniture and repairing things) and get ready for the changing seasons (more work depending on location) that you wouldn't have time to miss the internet lol. Chasing predatory animals away from your livestock would keep you on your toes too. Then you could sit back in the evening and enjoy your surroundings even though it would often be with a sore tired back and then you would pass out in your chair lol. But hey that sounds pretty good to me. Nicer then walking down a noisy street, trying not to get gum on your shoes to buy a bag of greasy chips to eat while you sit on your couch your still paying for to watch a tv show about the outside your to busy to go out in, lol. Did anyone ever hear about the guy who did that in Alaska? His cabins still there in a Lake Clark National Park. He got supplies flown in but he built everything himself. Interesting guy, he stayed there until he was in his 80's all alone. Dick Proenneke was his name, he filmed abit while he was up there.

Here's a link to info on the guy I just mentioned in case anyone's interested. Really he was very interesting IMO. Needs a lock on his door to keep bears out, no problem makes one out of wood. Needs more cutlery, no problem makes some out of wood.
http://www.aloneinthewilderness.com/

Yeah, I like wilderness too. On vacation.

Humans are social creatures. The psychologically healthy ones are anyway. So it really says something about a person when, instead of living around other people and having a healthy level of interpersonal contact, he or she would choose to permanently live as a recluse.

Day Hiker wrote:Humans are social creatures. The psychologically healthy ones are anyway.

Sorta. There are introverts and extroverts, both healthy. The introverts can go a long time without other people.

Bob Sihler wrote:I'd rather live in a small, no-stoplights town at the edge of wilderness, like some of the little towns in northwestern Wyoming. There's no way I'd have the knowledge or resourcefulness to survive long-term in the wild, and even if I did, I don't know how I'd pass the down time.

But a little town without much materialism and hurry, with mountains beckoning from Main Street-- yeah, I could go for that. I'd be happy never to see a city or suburb again.

Sigh, sounds like Beerwah just a few years ago.

Soon as they put in a set of stop lights, the rot set in. Couple of new housing estates, traffic got heavier, had to close the railway crossing and put in a bridge, then another set of lights, and then another. and before you know it, there goes the neighbourhood.

I can still see the mountains from the main street though, and people in the shops still know yer first name.

dadndave wrote:

Bob Sihler wrote:I'd rather live in a small, no-stoplights town at the edge of wilderness, like some of the little towns in northwestern Wyoming. There's no way I'd have the knowledge or resourcefulness to survive long-term in the wild, and even if I did, I don't know how I'd pass the down time.

But a little town without much materialism and hurry, with mountains beckoning from Main Street-- yeah, I could go for that. I'd be happy never to see a city or suburb again.

Sigh, sounds like Beerwah just a few years ago.

Soon as they put in a set of stop lights, the rot set in. Couple of new housing estates, traffic got heavier, had to close the railway crossing and put in a bridge, then another set of lights, and then another. and before you know it, there goes the neighbourhood.

I can still see the mountains from the main street though, and people in the shops still know yer first name.

See, that's why we're allowed to carry machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers in the United States. We can nip suburbanization in the bud.

We also take potshots at people who spell with unnecessary "u"s.

I prefer to live urban and visit wilderness regularly.

The other way round is not bad either.

Stuck in one or the other, sucks.

I've lived all of the above so I know.

I would LOVE to live in the wilderness as long as I have internet, for reading, communication, entertainment.

I live on a densely popuplated Island, have for 36 years, so I dont need to be around a lot of people, actually I dont like it.

Living in a small California mountain town with hiking, rock climbing, skiing and four season weather does it for me. Like minded people, mid week access to excellent granite and enough free time to go climbing are the issues that always mattered to the two of us. I just wish I had the courage to do it many years ago. Moving to Idyllwild 10 years ago was the best thing the two of us did. I gues it all depends on what is important in one's life. Outdoors is where it's at for us, so city living is out. BTW re Bob Sihler's note about Wyoming, we could live (for example) in the Pinedale area in a minute. Having Wind River Range in one's backyard would have to be really something.