View Full Version : Thru-hiking: A selfish act?
Curious as to what others think about this. Is thru-hiking, or long-distance hiking, a selfish act or does it in someway benefit others and further society?
Geniunely curious to others' opinions. Former thru-hikers, section hikers, day-hikers and cyber on-lookers need all apply.
I have thought of this before, and surely with all the good I could be doing, it is. But I rationalize it to myself. I am taking 6 months to live as far from society as I can. No driving a car, no TV, minimal shopping, no heater or AC blasting day and night. Only using my own renewable energy, that's kind of BS though....
It feels so right though.
Footslogger
02-26-2008, 12:29
Well ...I didn't exactly think of it as being "selfish" per se at the time but I'd have to be honest and say that, at least in my case, the hike was strictly for me. It was something I wanted to do and to the best of my knowledge did not benefit anyone else ...unless of course it served as inspiration for someone to plan and complete a thru-hike.
So, yeah, I guess you could say it was somewhat selfish ...at least in the passive sense.
'Slogger
Frolicking Dinosaurs
02-26-2008, 12:37
Since you asked for a section-hiker's opinion: I don't think a thru-hike is selfish unless the thru-hiker neglects truly pressing needs to do it. It is one thing to thru with the normal needs - children, income, etc. - planned for during your hike, but quite another to hike without the care of these items adequately covered.
For example: if you go off on a thru knowing your wife is pregnant and will not be able to work for 8 weeks and will therefore not be able to pay the bills, but you say it is her problem because you are chasing the holy grail of thru-hiking --- that is selfish
Lone Wolf
02-26-2008, 12:40
Curious as to what others think about this. Is thru-hiking, or long-distance hiking, a selfish act or does it in someway benefit others and further society?
Geniunely curious to others' opinions. Former thru-hikers, section hikers, day-hikers and cyber on-lookers need all apply.
totally selfish
If you saw the mini series "The Stand" or read the book. Then you know that close to the end the leaders had to walk from Boulder to Las Vegas. This was to empty them out and recharge there spirits.
I spent 5 months on the trail last year, and I think or atleast hope that I am a better person for it.
Cannibal
02-26-2008, 12:42
Sure it's selfish! People don't thru because other people want them to, I'm going because I want to thru. That said, I don't think it is a negative type of selfishness unless you're one of those people that FD mentioned.
Footslogger
02-26-2008, 12:46
If there is such a thing ( ...and I believe there is) I would say that my 2003 thru fell into the category of "Healthy Selfish" ...
'Slogger
Yep, I've thought about this a lot. The hike itself is inherently narcissistic.
Now, if a hiker (thru or not) makes an effort to evangelize others to hike, or to preserve the wilderness, or truly enjoy and appreciate nature, I'd call that productive.
Appalachian Tater
02-26-2008, 12:47
Most thru-hikes are selfish, but there's nothing wrong with doing something for yourself because you want to or need to unless it means you're neglecting something or someone else, like Frolicking Dinosaurs said.
A lot of thru-hikers are in transition, having ended a job or entire career, a relationship, an education, or some other activity or phase in their lives. Others are renewing themselves, as on a vacation or sabbatical, so they can return to their usual doings in a different way.
There is also a lot of unselfishness observed on and associated with a thru-hike. A lot of thru-hikers comment that it restored their faith in man. Some thru-hikers change their outlook on life and priorities.
Not much bad comes out of a thru-hike in the long run.
Not selfish, thru-hiking does further society.
BackTrack1
02-26-2008, 12:49
I dont think it is selfish as long as you have everything in order before you leave and dont leave it for someone else to deal with while you are gone, I plan on thrue hiking in 8 yrs when my youngest graduates high school, if i were to go now , i would say that would be selfish, leaving my kids for someone else to take care of wouldnt be right nor would i ever do that to them.
I know when i do it it will not benifit anyone but me, im the one that wants to hike, so therefor i must wait till the time is right, everyone in my life knows when she graduates they will be seeing me off in march of the next yr. to follow my dream of hiking the AT,
I will be ready and all my sh_t wll be in order so therefor i dont think it will be selfish at all,
After all its your life, you should do what you want sometimes, you only live once.
Just my thought.
Almost There
02-26-2008, 12:50
Selfish isn't a negative word, but it has taken on negative connotations. If you are doing it for you, then it is absolutely selfish. Nothing wrong with that, but it is.
Who thru-hikes completely for someone else's needs???
Not much bad comes out of a thru-hike in the long run.
Nobody would dispute that. The point of the thread, it seems to me, is that most of the benefits accrue to the hiker. If "society" benefits at all, it's indirectly... from acts other than the hike itself.
I think A-Train makes an important point. Good thread.
Train Wreck 2
02-26-2008, 12:53
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. One of the reasons I'm doing this is to teach myself to survive on less, which in the long run will benefit the environment.
And anything that I can bring back to help others live more simple, happier lives is of great benefit to society. All in all though... it's for me. One the other hand...
I've been working some sort of job since I was 14. In most of them I was under appreciated and I was never adequately compensated for my time. I've given enough of my time to feel justified in taking some (and probably allof it) back for myself. I don't think it's seen as selfish for my life to be used by others to aid in their monetary aquisition... why should it be selfish for me to go out and just live?
Appalachian Tater
02-26-2008, 12:55
Selfish isn't a negative word, but it has taken on negative connotations. If you are doing it for you, then it is absolutely selfish. Nothing wrong with that, but it is. Exactly.
Who thru-hikes completely for someone else's needs???Probably not too many successful thru-hikers.
Nobody would dispute that. The point of the thread, it seems to me, is that most of the benefits accrue to the hiker. If "society" benefits at all, it's indirectly... from acts other than the hike itself. Yes, and I don't see that as a problem at all. It's not a harmful act to others.
Sure, it's primarily a selfish act. Everyone's life is a balance between taking care of themselves, and helping others. We all have to work out our own formula, somewhere between Brittany Spears and Mother Teresa.
Yes, and I don't see that as a problem at all. It's not a harmful act to others.
Hypothetically -- there's the possibility of the hiker shirking other responsibilities. I'm sure that's never happened. :rolleyes:
take-a-knee
02-26-2008, 13:02
totally selfish
Yes, and what of it? The last time I checked "The pursuit of happiness" was part of the thesis statement of the seminal document of this republic. What could be more American? That probably bothers some of you treehuggers 'cause you lend a lot more creedence to Karl Marx than Adam Smith.
I've met some folks who hike for charity, why don't we all do this?
Lion king is raising money for the American Heart Association this year I believe.
totally selfish
Yes, and what of it? The last time I checked "The pursuit of happiness" was part of the thesis statement of the seminal document of this republic. What could be more American? That probably bothers some of you treehuggers 'cause you lend a lot more creedence to Karl Marx than Adam Smith.
Lone Wolf, the Tree Hugger...It'll take some time to get used to that...;)
Lone Wolf
02-26-2008, 13:05
Yes, and what of it?
nothin' of it. dude asked a question, i answered. what of it?
Yeah, TAK. LW is some tree hugger. It takes a real man to call LW a librul. ;)
Appalachian Tater
02-26-2008, 13:07
Hypothetically -- there's the possibility of the hiker shirking other responsibilities. I'm sure that's never happened. :rolleyes:I did address that by referring to FD's post. It's not an inherently harmful act. It's a long walk with a lot of ups and downs.
I've met some folks who hike for charity, why don't we all do this?
It's an odd way of raising money... connecting cash-toward-charity with someone else's physical exercise. Yeah, I know it's done all the time -- I still find it very strange.
It depends in part on what you do when you return home. As Henry Thoreau rightly observed, "In Wildness is the preservation of the world." Only those that have experienced wildness are likely to fight to preserve wildness.
Many of the ills of society result from a lack of contact with the natural world. As Henry also observed, "City life is millions of people being lonesome together."
Though some of the threads on White Blaze belie this truth, trails produce the nicest folks one is likely to meet in this world, and the best and most dedicated volunteers.
Weary www.matlt.org
At the time I did my long distance hike it was probably selfish. I was in a dead-end job that I didn't enjoy, wasn't sure where I was going to go with my life. I was 26 years old, finished college, but still very unhappy.
I took a year off to hike.
I came back to the "Real World", got trained as a Paramedic, and for the past 20+ years have done what I consider "Service" type jobs (not all as a Paramedic). I think that taking the year off allowed me to re-evaluate what was important and since that time society, as a whole, has benefited from my decision.
I'm at a point now that another break is starting to loom in my mind - not sure if it will wait until retirement. I know if I were allowed a six-month leave, that I would come back as a rejuvenated and more valuable employee.
I strongly believe that for many of us, society would be better off if extended breaks from the everyday work schedule were to become the norm - will probably never convince the bureaucrats of that tho.
Appalachian Tater
02-26-2008, 13:24
I'm at a point now that another break is starting to loom in my mind - not sure if it will wait until retirement. I know if I were allowed a six-month leave, that I would come back as a rejuvenated and more valuable employee.
I strongly believe that for many of us, society would be better off if extended breaks from the everyday work schedule were to become the norm - will probably never convince the bureaucrats of that tho.
Teach at university level.
Maybe the question should be, does being a worker ant further society, and to what end?
We all can't be Einsteins.
Teach at university level.
You know, after I posted that, I thought of Universities as one example of a bureaucracy that did embrace the idea of extended time away from the normal job. Not only through the summers off, but through the use of sabbaticals. The Professors are allowed time away from teaching in order to pursue special interests. Granted the University expects publishing to follow, but it is still time away from the norm.
Appalachian Tater
02-26-2008, 13:40
You know, after I posted that, I thought of Universities as one example of a bureaucracy that did embrace the idea of extended time away from the normal job. Not only through the summers off, but through the use of sabbaticals. The Professors are allowed time away from teaching in order to pursue special interests. Granted the University expects publishing to follow, but it is still time away from the norm.I don't know about paramedic instructors but there's a pretty severe shortage of nursing instructors overall.
warraghiyagey
02-26-2008, 13:44
I suppose that getting a drink of water, taking a breath of air, looking into the light of day, enjoying the sight of a full moon, getting an education, wanting a family or reading a book also fall into the category of selfish acts then.
Tipi Walter
02-26-2008, 13:48
Yes, and what of it? The last time I checked "The pursuit of happiness" was part of the thesis statement of the seminal document of this republic. What could be more American? That probably bothers some of you treehuggers 'cause you lend a lot more creedence to Karl Marx than Adam Smith.
This republic was built on the genocide and removal of the American Indian, and their "pursuit of happiness" was not taken into account, so how exactly did that "seminal document" help them? The original treehuggers, people like Dragging Canoe, Crazy Horse, Sweet Medicine and other Indians, fought to protect not only their women and children but the land they considered to be their "church". I do not believe the Indians wanted Karl Marx or Adam Smith speaking on their behalf. Those early "environmentalists" wore quillwork and feathers and knew the land and would not be happy to be categorized with the limp-wrist treehuggers of today.
warraghiyagey
02-26-2008, 13:50
This republic was built on the genocide and removal of the American Indian, and their "pursuit of happiness" was not taken into account, so how exactly did that "seminal document" help them? The original treehuggers, people like Dragging Canoe, Crazy Horse, Sweet Medicine and other Indians, fought to protect not only their women and children but the land they considered to be their "church". I do not believe the Indians wanted Karl Marx or Adam Smith speaking on their behalf. Those early "environmentalists" wore quillwork and feathers and knew the land and would not be happy to be categorized with the limp-wrist treehuggers of today.
Tipi, I was sooo right there with ya until the last sentence. Got a little ugly.:(
take-a-knee
02-26-2008, 13:52
Lone Wolf, the Tree Hugger...It'll take some time to get used to that...;)
I wasn't calling Wolf a treehugger, I'm sure he likes trees like most of us but he doesn't cry when a few get turned into home for republicans.
take-a-knee
02-26-2008, 13:59
This republic was built on the genocide and removal of the American Indian, and their "pursuit of happiness" was not taken into account, so how exactly did that "seminal document" help them? The original treehuggers, people like Dragging Canoe, Crazy Horse, Sweet Medicine and other Indians, fought to protect not only their women and children but the land they considered to be their "church". I do not believe the Indians wanted Karl Marx or Adam Smith speaking on their behalf. Those early "environmentalists" wore quillwork and feathers and knew the land and would not be happy to be categorized with the limp-wrist treehuggers of today.
You are right about the American Indian being the original environmentalist, and I agree that they probably don't think much of Ted Kazynski or Algore, but "genocide" hardly applies to America's treatment of them, there are more native americans alive today than when Columbus landed. We took most of their land, but not all of it. I worked at the Gallup Indian Medical Center for awhile, they recieve quality medical care, for free, for life. They can go to college in most states for free. That nazi/genocide brush is a wee bit broad, methinks.
Blissful
02-26-2008, 14:02
Because of our hike, we will be giving presentations later this spring at our public library and to a group of 14 Scout leaders in our area, encouraging others to get out and hike and enjoy nature rather than live lives in front of tvs and video games. These meetings wouldn't have come about except we did the hike. I also sent out a press release and got a great write up for hiking the AT and on the ATC. If you do keep such a feat to yourself and don't use it to benefit others in some way, then it is selfish. But then again, who would want to endure the hardship of the AT - the pain, the bugs, the mud, the cold, the heat, the rocks, for some selfish pleasure? Honestly?
take-a-knee
02-26-2008, 14:02
nothin' of it. dude asked a question, i answered. what of it?
I thought I was agreeing with you.
Lone Wolf
02-26-2008, 14:04
I thought I was agreeing with you.
oh. ok.
Because of our hike, we will be giving presentations later this spring at our public library and to a group of 14 Scout leaders in our area, encouraging others to get out and hike and enjoy nature rather than live lives in front of tvs and video games.
That's entirely consistent with what I've said. The hike itself is selfish. It's what you do afterwards, as a consequence, that makes it less so. Any benefits to society are indirect, at best.
I thought I was agreeing with you.
So you're saying thru-hiking or the pursuit of happiness is selfish?
warraghiyagey
02-26-2008, 14:07
You are right about the American Indian being the original environmentalist, and I agree that they probably don't think much of Ted Kazynski or Algore, but "genocide" hardly applies to America's treatment of them, there are more native americans alive today than when Columbus landed. We took most of their land, but not all of it. I worked at the Gallup Indian Medical Center for awhile, they recieve quality medical care, for free, for life. They can go to college in most states for free. That nazi/genocide brush is a wee bit broad, methinks.
That's a lame and uninformed take/justification.
"there are more native americans alive today than when Columbus landed. "
The last being a particularly ridiculous thought.
Just out of curiosity - if you truly see this as a viable view - how many more Americans are there than when Columbus landed? It was a genocide - the fact that it lasted more than the six years that is our more recent bar level doesn't make it less egregious - but more.
Grab a book once in awhile and take a little more actual knowledge into your depositions.
So you're saying thru-hiking is selfish?
Yeah, really.... I didn't see where that tiff (twixt LW and TAK) had been resolved. Just some hand-waving. Maybe one or both of 'em hoping we weren't paying attention, or something.
So you're saying thru-hiking or the pursuit of happiness is selfish?
LW's words were (and I quote the entire post, verbatim)
totally selfish
(Post #5 in this thread.)
LW's words were (and I quote the entire post, verbatim)
totally selfish
(Post #5 in this thread.)
And you'd expect him to say different? I'm trying to figure out what TAK thinks. He seems to be saying the pursuit of happiness is selfish. I disagree
Tipi Walter
02-26-2008, 14:17
In the old days, everybody lived outdoors, so hiking from one area to another could not really be considered selfish since the whole tribe or at least your wife would join you. Sort of like living permanently on the AT.
Nowadays there are two types of people, those who live indoors and those who live outdoors. Since a vast majority of people live indoors and since they elevate such a lifestyle to near wetdream status, of course anyone wanting to live outdoors(i.e. walking the AT)appears selfish.
Seems to me that you can do almost anything as a selfish act, if you go at it that way. My view of a trail, any trail, is that it is just life lived on the move. What would be particularly unselfish about not doing it?
You can't use a thru hike to run away from your troubles. They will follow you out there and dog your heels for as long as you want. But if the trail is just the next step in your life, that's what it is! There's nothing different about it compared to the rest of your life.
What the trail means to people is different for everyone, because their lives are different. For some it is a party, for others a retreat or a meditation, and for others yet it can be a therapy or a recovery period. Some just want to get out and be with their neighbors, the animals and trees. For some WBers it is just part of their social life, their family and friends. Some try to escape there. Which of these (or something entirely different) seems to describe you?
Why do you feel selfish about time spent out on the trail? Is someone else laying it on you, or is it something you do to yourself? Would you feel different not going? Whatever the case, don't worry about some artificial definition of what is right. See if you can figure out what is bugging you down deep, and fix that before you decide what to do next. Don't try to run away to the trail, but don't feel guilty about it either. It's just a path in the woods.
And you'd expect him to say different? I'm trying to figure out what TAK thinks. He seems to be saying the pursuit of happiness is selfish. I disagree
I happen to agree with LW. TAK, like clockwork, takes this off into into some right-wing wacko realm. Fascinating to watch TAK trying to frame LW as a lubrul. :D
To be very clear, I maintain that it's the hiking itself that's selfish. Any "socially redeeming" consequences are secondary, indirect effects.
To be very clear, I maintain that it's the hiking itself that's selfish. Any "socially redeeming" consequences are secondary, indirect effects.
And working is socially redeeming? I'll make sure to tell the kids at McD's and the older people at Walmart how well they're doing..
And working is socially redeeming? I'll make sure to tell the kids at McD's and the older people at Walmart how well they're doing..
I don't know about socially redeeming; that depends on the work. I can say for certain that someone finds my work productive, else I wouldn't be getting a paycheck.
My wife earns a fraction of what I do, in spite of having a Ph.D. and working with some really tough clients. I regard her work as 100% socially redeeming. My work just makes profits and silly electronic machines. Her work fixes people, or at least tries to.
As I said not everyone can be an Einstein. Some could say it's selfish to work for a pay check.
I am having trouble articulating what I want to say, but I think a long-distance hike is both/neither. You can certainly find a post of mine where I fall on the selfish side, but I wished I would have qualified that statement. I don't believe that any socially redeeming consequences are secondary or indirect effects. They cannot help but occur. Chances are, if you thru-hike or walk the mts for a good stretch, you will return to whereever you were a better animal. Boy Scout meetings and volunteering aside, every second of every day will be slightly effected by your experience and by extension the world in which you inhabit. That to me is a direct positive unselfish result of a thruhike. This is hard to explain, but in total, I don't think a thru-hike is one or the other.
Chances are, if you thru-hike or walk the mts for a good stretch, you will return to whereever you were a better animal.
I wish it were so. I'd love to believe that, but I'm not convinced of it, myself.
take-a-knee
02-26-2008, 15:27
And you'd expect him to say different? I'm trying to figure out what TAK thinks. He seems to be saying the pursuit of happiness is selfish. I disagree
"By pursuing his own interests he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he intends to promote it."
Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations"
Yes, it is selfish, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't intend to achieve your goals off the labors of others.
Yes, it is selfish, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't intend to achieve your goals off the labors of others.
Which is exactly what any employer does. He/she expects to earn a net profit. Income must exceed expenses. Expenses include wages paid.
take-a-knee
02-26-2008, 15:32
I happen to agree with LW. TAK, like clockwork, takes this off into into some right-wing wacko realm. Fascinating to watch TAK trying to frame LW as a lubrul. :D
To be very clear, I maintain that it's the hiking itself that's selfish. Any "socially redeeming" consequences are secondary, indirect effects.
Well, as far as the "right-wing whacko realm" you'd expect nothing less from me, and as for "framing" LW I did no such thing. I said what I said. LW has ZERO "treehugger" posts in this forum, so how could I be "framing" him? If the shoe fits....
never mind.... :rolleyes:
I think that those that come from priviledge are more likely to be able to thru hike, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong or bad or immoral. Also, I think societal good does come from some thru hikers - some people might become environmentalists or even just more moral from having been through this kind of experience - look at the idea of the walkabout. I don't think it is a selfish act fundamentally but like others said, it can be selfish depending on the circumstances.
Oops only saw the first page, didn't see there was more of a convo going on here! Sorry to interrupt! ;)
Appalachian Tater
02-26-2008, 16:46
Dude, what are you apologizing for? What you said makes perfect sense. If someone wants a private conversation they can use the PM function.
I suppose that getting a drink of water, taking a breath of air, looking into the light of day, enjoying the sight of a full moon, getting an education, wanting a family or reading a book also fall into the category of selfish acts then.
Reading through this thread, those were my thoughts, also.:-?
Jeez, is breathing air selfish? And then exhaling CO2, contributing to global warming?:eek: Well, excuse me!!!
GGS2, I think sums it up fairly well, "...it is just life lived on the move...".
Why do we have to make it "selfish or unselfish"?
Everything you do in life is a search for "goodies", survival[meeting your wants and needs], if you will.
More or less a HYOH.:sun
warraghiyagey
02-26-2008, 18:25
Well said JRW. I'm always a little taken aback how often topics that should seem like the good things in life are looked at through a burning hot spyglass here.:cool:
Peace:sun
Why do we have to make it "selfish or unselfish"?
I don't think the OP was suggesting that thru-hiking is evil in any way. In any case, I certainly wouldn't say that.
OTOH, there is this "aura" surrounding thru-hikers and thru-hiking, suggesting that hikers themselves, or the very act of hiking, was somehow uplifting, virtuous, close to g*d, blah blah.
There's no question that thru-hikers feel that way, at times, or that some newbies & outsiders think of hikers that way, at times. Thru-hikers may feel good, experience epiphanies, etc. etc. They may change and grow (spiritually, emotionally, etc.) over the course of the hike. No problem. But these benefits go to the hiker -- and nobody else.
My sole point in this thread is to point out that the mere act of thru-hiking does nothing, per se, for society. There are many indirect effects that may (or may not) stem from the hike, but these have more to do with the individual involved -- not the hike itself.
If hiker X performs "good deeds" on the way, or has positive effects on the people he/she meets, that's great. But these are indirect effects of the hike. Odds are, hiker X would have done the same thing whether hiking or not. The hike itself delivered the hiker to a particular place at a particular time, that's all.
To give a more concrete example... There once was a thru-hiker calling himself "Eco Warrior." Now, I've got decent tree-hugger credentials, but I thought that name was a bit grandiose. Merely walking from Georgia to Maine does nothing, nada, zilch for the environment. That dude wasn't fighting for the environment. He was walking from Georgia to Maine.
pipesmoke
02-26-2008, 18:56
To be of any value to society one needs to think of "numero ono" first. Then do one's best to pay back for that privelige.
warraghiyagey
02-26-2008, 19:02
I No problem. But these benefits go to the hiker -- and nobody else.
My sole point in this thread is to point out that the mere act of thru-hiking does nothing, per se, for society. .
And that's different from the minutiae of everyday life how?? Why is hiking being singled out - that's what I'm wondering - and why it even would be with all the pernicious deeds that flow from society every day.
To be of any value to society one needs to think of "numero ono" first. Then do one's best to pay back for that privelige.
Did you mean "Numero Bono"?
And that's different from the minutiae of everyday life how?? Why is hiking being singled out - that's what I'm wondering - and why it even would be with all the pernicious deeds that flow from society every day.
Somewhat different issue; I see your point.
I think it gets back to the perceived "reverence" for thru-hikers and thru-hiking. It's the issue that makes LW so dismissive of thru-hikers and thru-hiking, and I kinda see his point. I'll also say that section-hiking is in the same category... and really, all hiking is in the same category.
There's nothing especially bad about thru-hiking, nor anything especially good about it. Just don't pretend that it's a major benefit to society somehow. The only direct beneficiary is the hiker.
One more time: walking from point A to point B does not benefit society as a whole. Why is this so difficult to understand?
warraghiyagey
02-26-2008, 19:47
During the entire time I thought of walking the AT I had not concept one of the other hikers or any of the issues that folks have come to have with certain aspects of hiking, hikers or the trail.
It was always personal, beautiful, a choice for my life, nothing more, nothing less.
I still feel the same way about it - and the folk I meet along the way I'm grateful for - needless to judge any of it or them - simply to enjoy as one of the experiences in life.
During the entire time I thought of walking the AT I had not concept one of the other hikers or any of the issues that folks have come to have with certain aspects of hiking, hikers or the trail.
It was always personal, beautiful, a choice for my life, nothing more, nothing less.
I still feel the same way about it - and the folk I meet along the way I'm grateful for - needless to judge any of it or them - simply to enjoy as one of the experiences in life.
Well, thank you for illustrating my point. The hike has meaning for you. You're doing it for you. I think that's what A-Train (and I) mean by "selfish." Not bad, necessarily -- but neither is it inherently good for anyone other than you.
warraghiyagey
02-26-2008, 19:58
The word selfish is rapt with negative connotations. There's nothing such about walking the trail for me - and I doubt for Many of the folks that choose to do so - any more than any other act in life. Otherwise it is simply selfish to breathe. Maybe we need to change the definition of the word selfish if hiking is a selfish act.
Unless your hobby is working in a soup kitchen... everything is a selfish act.
warraghiyagey
02-26-2008, 20:08
Unless your hobby is working in a soup kitchen... everything is a selfish act.
:welcome:welcome Although the spirit in this thread will likely say it was selfish of me to welcome you. Welcome anyway.:welcome:sun
The word selfish is rapt with negative connotations. There's nothing such about walking the trail for me - and I doubt for Many of the folks that choose to do so - any more than any other act in life. Otherwise it is simply selfish to breathe. Maybe we need to change the definition of the word selfish if hiking is a selfish act.
Feeling a bit guilty, wargy? ;) :D :rolleyes:
warraghiyagey
02-26-2008, 20:11
Feeling a bit guilty, wargy? ;) :D :rolleyes:
Not in the least. Just disenchanted that the trail makes others feel this way.:(
Skidsteer
02-26-2008, 20:15
Not in the least. Just disenchanted that the trail makes others feel this way.:(
I think most have reconciled this stuff already.
Life is life and is best when lived.
As I said not everyone can be an Einstein. Some could say it's selfish to work for a pay check.
Not everyone has a trust fund. ;) :rolleyes: :cool:
Lone Wolf
02-26-2008, 20:18
Unless your hobby is working in a soup kitchen... everything is a selfish act.
even then, they want everyone to know about it. they want the pats on the back.
warraghiyagey
02-26-2008, 20:19
I think most have reconciled this stuff already.
Life is life and is best when lived.
:sun:sun:sun:sun
Yes, taking off 5-6 months to HYOH is selfish. Period.
And you know what? I don't feel even the slightest bit of guilt about having done it.
It was the best present I've ever given myself, one I had to earn twice. The first was by surviving 9 1/2 years of life in the Navy and Marine Corps and saving my money so I could walk the trail. And second, I earned my thru-hike with every step I made toward Katahdin.
Did I save the planet en route? Nope. Feed the hungry? Yeah, I was the hungry. Did I make the world a better place? Just my world.
But that was enough for me. Nobody will ever make me feel guilty about my wonderfully selfish thru-hike.
cowboy nichols
02-26-2008, 20:38
:-?How can it not benifit others ?? Before we set a foot on any trail people have benifited from it ,the tent sales, backpacks, boots,stoves etc, I could go on and on. So no,:banana I don't think it is selfish. I'm going to make someone happy and go for a hike:banana
Alligator
02-26-2008, 20:52
IMO hiking in general has a net positive benefit to society. It gets people into the outdoors and more familiar with the natural world (as opposed to cities/suburbia). The simple bit of exercise itself can be a great benefit to reducing the world's waistlines. More importantly, it can broaden our perception of the environment and instill a more connected view of the planet. Is this a consequence for everybody. No. But in general I think that hiking is a positive force for society. Are all thruhikers changed in this manner. No. However, I somehow believe that most returning thrus have a better appreciation for what is out there.
That's all I have to say. (OK, I copied this over from the Marathon Wii Forum.)
Yes, taking off 5-6 months to HYOH is selfish. Period.
Selfish opposed to what? I could sit here for 6 months, would that be selfish?
GitRdone
02-26-2008, 20:58
Certainly during our lifetime it is perfectly OK to do something just for yourself. Many people have given a lot to others- family, friends, strangers, and have been totally unselfish in the life they have lived. I am not yet a thru hiker because I'm still giving at this point in my life so I section hike. In 4 years or so I'll be able to complete a thru hike and cannot wait. But, until that time as has been said before by others in this thread obligations must be fulfilled. And then when I am ready to thru hike there will be nothing selfish about it and I'll have the support of those who are closest to me. I pass no judgement for the reasons that anyone thru hikes because we are all individuals living on this planet and have to live our life the way we see fit. Hopefully in our quest to quench the reason for our hike we are not hurting others by doing so.
Selfish opposed to what? I could sit here for 6 months, would that be selfish?
If you were only looking out for you, sure, by the definition of selfishness, it would be selfish.
I think the key is that our culture has been programmed by concepts of guilt for so long that looking out for one's welfare is often deemed as a negative issue. Americans tend to be so wealthy compared to so many other parts of the world that it is difficult to turn on a TV or answer the phone without somebody soliciting for some organization that implies if you don't give, you're selfish. So be it. I'd rather live guilt free.
Sometimes we ought to enrich our own souls first. It's why I can now deal with teenage delinquents with behavioral, emotional, and mental disorders 5 days a week, 39 weeks a year. During those long breaks from school, I can afford to be pretty selfish.
The key is that it's not a guilty selfishness. I can give back later. But when I'm out there, that time is for me.
Or it could all be a debate over the semantics of the fairly loaded question that started this thread.
To me, the answer is simple. Sure a thru-hike is selfish. Now take your guilt trip somewhere else, because I'm going to hike! :)
:-?How can it not benifit others ?? Before we set a foot on any trail people have benifited from it ,the tent sales, backpacks, boots,stoves etc...
So thru-hiking is just another form of consumerism, and consumerism is good? Well, OK, then. How could anyone disagree with that logic? :rolleyes:
Selfish opposed to what? I could sit here for 6 months, would that be selfish?
Yes, absolutely -- in the sense that you choose to do that based on your own needs and desires, as opposed to the needs and desires of others.
Yes, absolutely -- in the sense that you choose to do that based on your own needs and desires, as opposed to the needs and desires of others.
I'm alone, there are no needs and desires of others. Is being single selfish?
Metaphor Man
02-26-2008, 21:58
It's clearly a good thing that some are occupied with the trail and away from the larger society for extended peroids. Some benefit from their absense, some do not. Some benefit from their absense (while on the trail), some do not.
I just hope when I'm out there for 6 wks. starting end of April or beginning of May '08 it will be of benefit to someone.
Skidsteer
02-26-2008, 21:58
Curious as to what others think about this. Is thru-hiking, or long-distance hiking, a selfish act or does it in someway benefit others and further society?
But I, I think maybe it's both.
Forrest Gump
But I, I think maybe it's both.
Forrest Gump
Anyone who can properly segue a Gumpism has the makings a great philosopher. :sun
I'm alone, there are no needs and desires of others. Is being single selfish?
"No man is an island."
I just hope when I'm out there for 6 wks. starting end of April or beginning of May '08 it will be of benefit to someone.
Yourself, most likely. ;)
Metaphor Man
02-26-2008, 22:50
Thanks terrapin!
I worked, I saved, I hiked. If that's being selfish someone needs to point out how.
warraghiyagey
02-26-2008, 23:31
I worked, I saved, I hiked. If that's being selfish someone needs to point out how.
Exactly:sun - but surely there's plenty of floks here (hikers:confused:) that will be more than anxious too.
I worked, I saved, I hiked. If that's being selfish someone needs to point out how.
Even if it is selfish, you have nothing to feel guilty about in any way. So by that definition, you can say it's not selfish.
Personally, I took great joy in the fact that I was putting myself first after a decade of looking out for my Marines. I felt it was a guiltlessly healthy sort of selfishness. But it was definitely all about me. :)
I worked, I saved, I hiked. If that's being selfish someone needs to point out how.
. . . .
warraghiyagey
02-27-2008, 00:00
Exactly:sun - but surely there's plenty of folks here (hikers:confused:) that will be more than anxious too.
Like I said . . . see above post.
Yes, taking off 5-6 months to HYOH is selfish. Period......
Compared to what? Pumping gas? Playing video games? Building houses? Selling tobacco? Running for the Legislature? Making money so you can retire to Florida in 50 years? .....?
Henry Thoreau thought "the mass of men live lives of quiet desperation..."
I've never been convinced that Henry was right about that. At least I've never seen a lot of desperation. Most people strike me as reasonably happy.
But I do think a lot of people live pretty trivial lives. And of all the things I see people do, it strikes me that thru hiking is the least trivial. I've been more fortunate than most. I supported my family over the decades doing some very interesting -- and I like to think -- useful things. But I didn't sense a let down when I went to Georgia and walked home.
Rather I think it ranks among the most important things I've ever done.
As for selfishness most everything humans do is in some sense selfish. To the extent that we have a choice, our choice in most instance is to do things we would most like to do at the moment.
Wise people will think about their choices carefully and choose things that are most interesting, most rewarding, most fun, most challenging, whatever.
Thru hiking is a reasonable choice, I think. I've heard a lot of people speak with regret about some of their choices over the years. No one has ever told me that they regret having walked the trail. A lot have expressed regret about not hiking the trail.
Weary
OK, let's try another tack. What does it mean to be selfless?
warraghiyagey
02-27-2008, 00:40
Look it up.
OK, let's try another tack. What does it mean to be selfless?
There's a Sanskrit term nishkam karma. Means selfless service. It is one of the duties of an observant Hindu, or of a sadhaka, a person following a spiritual path. A very wise guru asked a group of his followers what nishkam karma meant. The most senior man there, knowing full well that he wouldn't get it right, finally said, "In the Bhagavad Gita it is said ...", giving the answer above. "Bah!" said the guru, "Only God does selfless service."
This story is told by a New Yorker, a follower of that guru. He lives upstate, not far from the trail.
Almost There
02-27-2008, 00:45
OK, let's try another tack. What does it mean to be selfless?
Human beings cannot be truly selfless, they are capable of selfless acts...but they cannot be "truly selfless".
Selfless acts: Dying to save someone else, putting yourself at known risk for someone else, putting others needs ahead of your own, etc.
Human beings cannot be truly selfless, they are capable of selfless acts...but they cannot be "truly selfless".
Just as there are no "true" Christians, or "true" conservatives, etc. I'm not interested in absolutes, really.
Hey, folks, I'm not passing judgment. But it would be nice to see a bit of candor and introspection. You can rationalize and justify your hike eight ways till Sunday, for all I care. I think Bearpaw nailed it at the end of his last post...
But it was definitely all about me. :)
Jim Adams
02-27-2008, 00:55
No, never selfish.
Driving around in an over size, over weight -10 miles to the gallon SUV is selfish.
There are alot of diverse people and intelligent people out there but most non-hikers really don't have a clue!
geek
Maybe it's time for A-Train to chime in. He hasn't been heard from since the opening post.
. . . .
And what do you do? You work, you save, you flap your trap on Whiteblaze. :rolleyes:
"No man is an island.""He's a Peninsula" - Jefferson Airplane:D
Even if it is selfish, you have nothing to feel guilty about in any way. So by that definition, you can say it's not selfish.
You have the wrong guy if you think I feel guilty about hiking. On the contrary, it seems the ones that do think thru-hiking is selfish have some kind of guilt complex.
Not that I'll agree, but when someone can explain how it is selfish I'll listen.
take-a-knee
02-27-2008, 01:25
No, never selfish.
Driving around in an over size, over weight -10 miles to the gallon SUV is selfish.
There are alot of diverse people and intelligent people out there but most non-hikers really don't have a clue!
geek
No, that isn't selfish either, it just isn't very smart.
Almost There
02-27-2008, 01:32
You have the wrong guy if you think I feel guilty about hiking. On the contrary, it seems the ones that do think thru-hiking is selfish have some kind of guilt complex.
Not that I'll agree, but when someone can explain how it is selfish I'll listen.
Well here ya' go Sly!!!
Selfish as defined by Webster's:
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
Could ya' say you hike for yourself without thinking about others, isn't a bad thing, just the fact that you put yourself first. If you do then by definition...you are selfish.
I think most of us can say we hike for our own advantage, pleasure, and well-being. Like I said doesn't make any of us bad or evil people.
Maybe it's time for A-Train to chime in. He hasn't been heard from since the opening post.
K, me thinks you're right!
First off, I appreciate all of the wonderful introspective thoughts. It's always good to wax poetically about some of our greatest experiences and achievements.
I hope people didn't read into my question as my own judgements being cast. I was not judging others as being selfish.
Personally, I see my hike(s) as being selfish to a point, but more personally valuable than destructive. I couldn't imagine who i'd be today or what I'd be doing if I hadn't taken a chance, dropped college for a semester and hit Springer as a scared 19 year old. People often ask me if it was hard? Hard? No, it was just walking. Hard was telling my over-bearing mother (who was financing my education) that I needed to take time off and re-focus, and that I was doing this one way or another. The rest fell into place.
My PCT hike gave me the opportunity to raise awarness for a non-profit I felt very passionated and connected to, and luckily the hike was a vehicle to give back financially to them.
I do believe a thru-hike can't hinder society, but will only benefit it in the long-run. The best thing we could have would be a community of content, well-focused, relaxed people spreading that inner-happiness to other non-hikers. And influencing others is a beneficial product of thru-hiking, when familiy and friends' minds are opened to an alternative experience and maybe lifestlyle.
To answer my own question: Yes it is a selfish thing, considering you could be helping others instead of doing that, but to help others you need to help yourself first (as people like Bearpaw more eloquently showed). And life can't be completely about giving to other people, it's simply not possible. On that vein I respect people who work to support a family and, even if their work isn't viewed as charitable, or morally beneficial to society.
Honestly, this stemmed from thoughts I've been having recently, much of which is a product of Spriner Fever. I guess because of the expectations, morals and opinions that have been cast upon me from outsiders I've began to feel guilty about wanting to hike again. I know, what's wrong with doing something you love (if you can support it yourself) if not hurting anyone, and not needing to support others? I always hear "do it while your young". Well, i've done it, done it again, and I still want more. One side says "this is natural, you'll ALWAYS rather be thru-hiking than working, doing activity x, etc. Time to move on, be a productive member of society and join the long-ish term workforce. Your not doing much for yourself or others by continuing to walk. There is a part of me that wants and believes that. A scared side, which fears trying to break into a career path at 30 with a resume full of 3-4 month seasonal jobs and lots of gaps.
I'm applying to grad schools in a field where a degree is mandatory for a position. Should I be doing what I want to do more, or being smart about my future? I worry I will grow sick of thru-hiking some day, or getting seriously hurt. I'll be happy I got the schooling, so I have the choices. But if thru-hiking continues to be the most prominent, exciting, thing in my life, and I seem unfulfilled by other things, shouldn't I keep doing it (as long as I can afford to?)
I guess this opens a can of worms into: the merits/pitfalls of transitioning to a thru-hiker lifestlye
and
How do you generally view the importance of things like work, family/community commitment, etc. Most likely your answer will be a product of your surroundings and those who greatly influence you.
Lastly I never meant to say any of you who have thru-hiked should feel guilt about it being selfish. So many good examples of how your hikes changed you for the better. Just, what happens when that experience makes everything else pale in comparison??
Almost There
02-27-2008, 01:37
BTW, if you own a 10 mile to the gallon SUV and drive it around for work, etc....not selfish, you need it for your livelihood. If you buy one for your spouse to cart the one kid around and get groceries, then not only are you stupid, but you are also selfish in that you put your desires before the collective good. Don't need it, but you want it.
Words mean what they mean folks, not what you think or want them to mean.
The question shouldn't have been, "Is hiking selfish?" but rather "Why are hikers so thick-headed?"
Jim Adams
02-27-2008, 02:42
No, that isn't selfish either, it just isn't very smart.
It certainly is selfish...you feel that your contribution to the destruction of the earth is justified just because you want that vehicle. As far as needing it for work, there are alot of alteratives to a 10 mpg vehicle that will still do the job just fine.:-?
geek
Well, if you me you know (even when I hike) I'm not concerned excessively or exclusively with myself, or look for an advantage without regard for others.
However, YMMV. :p
Well here ya' go Sly!!!
Selfish as defined by Webster's:
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
take-a-knee
02-27-2008, 02:49
It certainly is selfish...you feel that your contribution to the destruction of the earth is justified just because you want that vehicle. As far as needing it for work, there are alot of alteratives to a 10 mpg vehicle that will still do the job just fine.:-?
geek
Driving a gas hog and being responsible for an oil war and a ruined economy is analagous to hitting yourself in the face with a hammer. It isn't selfish, it is just plain stupid.
To answer my own question: Yes it is a selfish thing, considering you could be helping others instead of doing that
What, you can't help others on the trail, or in towns along the way? If you're selfish, you're selfish. It doesn't matter where you are.
You are right about the American Indian being the original environmentalist, and I agree that they probably don't think much of Ted Kazynski or Algore, but "genocide" hardly applies to America's treatment of them, there are more native americans alive today than when Columbus landed. We took most of their land, but not all of it. I worked at the Gallup Indian Medical Center for awhile, they recieve quality medical care, for free, for life. They can go to college in most states for free. That nazi/genocide brush is a wee bit broad, methinks.
Would "ethnic cleansing" be a little easier for you to swallow?
Curious as to what others think about this. Is thru-hiking, or long-distance hiking, a selfish act or does it in someway benefit others and further society?
Geniunely curious to others' opinions. Former thru-hikers, section hikers, day-hikers and cyber on-lookers need all apply.
1 thru hike AND 1 full sectional completed. ON BOTH, in hindsight, IMO it was a bit selfish.
Both times however, everyone concerned with my well being got onboard with it though.
Still, my being a bit selfish should indicate sooner or later that its an internal thing in me. That keeps me out there. (The "church" is out there thing)
Lone Wolf
02-27-2008, 08:10
Is thru-hiking, or long-distance hiking, a selfish act or does it in someway benefit others and further society?
a selfish act. it does not benefit others or society.
easy question. easy answer. end of discussion and poll.
most off you ramble too much with simple questions :rolleyes:
What, you can't help others on the trail, or in towns along the way? If you're selfish, you're selfish. It doesn't matter where you are.
I don't disagree. OTOH, you could stay home, and help others where you are. There's nothing inherently virtuous about the hike itself. You're doing that for yourself.
Maybe folks are just overly defensive about the word "selfish." In the context of this thread, I took it to mean only, hiking for one's own benefit, first and foremost. No moral judgments.
And what do you do? You work, you save, you flap your trap on Whiteblaze. :rolleyes:
Bad day at the office, Sly? ;)
Is it bad to be selfish?
Panzer
jersey joe
02-27-2008, 10:14
a selfish act. it does not benefit others or society.
What if your thru hike inspires others?
What if your thru hike inspires others?
Indirect effect. Did you honestly buy all that gear and walk from A to B in order to inspire others? Could you not have inspired others from your present location, in many different ways?
At its fundamental, the question is not "Is a thru-hike selfish?" The question is "Is human activity "X" selfish?" Which of course begs the additional question of "How do you define selfish?"
My answer: A thru-hike is no more or less selfish than any other act of human-kind.
Selfish: Once the animal has volition (the ability to make choices) the animal makes them to serve his/her perceived best interests at the time. No matter the culture, the era, or the range of choices. From ancient and aboriginal to post-modern apocalyptic.
Selfishness can have tremendous benefit for others: my personal desire to cure my own child from illness can cause me to discover the cause of disease, invent a new medicine, politic for better health care, or learn a new way to pray.
Most of us, while important in our own little world of friends and family, are insignificant in the grand-scheme of things. Few people make enough impact on earth that their legacy of deeds / inventions are remembered for longer than a generation.
As long as you aren't hurting anyone, do what you want to do. Hike, go bowling, meditate, invest in oil companies, do trail magic. It may uplift some people, and it may desperately annoy others. But it is your choice.
jersey joe
02-27-2008, 10:34
Indirect effect. Did you honestly buy all that gear and walk from A to B in order to inspire others? Could you not have inspired others from your present location, in many different ways?
It could be argued that there are no selfless acts. (I recall a Friends episode that explored this question)
My answer: A thru-hike is no more or less selfish than any other act of human-kind.
I agree. OTOH, there's nothing particularly virtuous about it, either. Nothing much that entitles you to respect, admiration, gratitude, deference, etc.
Here I go breaking Lent, yet again. Good thing I'm not a Catholic.
I'm a baptised Pedestrian, but not Confirmed, 'til I complete my thru-hike. ;)
Is a thru-hike a selfish act?
By Definition 1: Depends.
Is it excessive? Yes. Is it exclusive? Depends on how it is done.
The key point is whether it is done without regard for others.
By Definition 2: Depends.
Again, it depends on whether or not it is done with disregard of others.
By Definition 3: This is perhaps the most important definition, I think.
Thru-hiking is not selfish, as long as you are pink blazing, or bring your partner. :D
Main Entry: selfˇish
Pronunciation: \ˈsel-fish\
Function: adjective
Date: 1640
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
3: being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function <selfish DNA>; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication <selfish genes>
— selfˇishˇly adverb
— selfˇishˇness noun
take-a-knee
02-27-2008, 10:57
Would "ethnic cleansing" be a little easier for you to swallow?
I did a little research and I now admit to being at least partially wrong. US Census data states that 4.3 million people identify themselves at American Indian. I've read anthropological estimates that place the resident native population at 2-3 million in the early colonial era. So, my statement is apparantly true on its face. What I was not aware of is the estimated american indian population was reduced to possibly 250,000 by the late 18th century (Encarta/source). Forced relocation and wars undoubtedly contributed to that but microbes and the Indian's lack of immunity (to white diseases) is thought to be the main cause. I'm well aware of the Trail of Tears and Andrew Jackson's treachery. What was done was, in many cases, inhuman and inexcuseable. The US government intentionally wiped out the buffalo to starve the plains tribes and force them onto the reservation. What is never mentioned, however, is the american aboriginal penchant for warfare itself. Many, if not most, tribes were perpetually at war with one another. Some tribes were wiped out by others, the Anasazi in the southwest come to mind.
So, our treatment of the Indians was no different than how they treated each other, that doesn't excuse the grievous deeds done, in many cases by calculating politicians, but the policies were changed, and the Indians were given full citizenship. Economic restitution has been made. All that is a hell of a lot more than most countries would have done. And they were not exterminated, Pol Pot-style, as marxist history professors love to state.
Wolf - 23000
02-27-2008, 11:32
Curious as to what others think about this. Is thru-hiking, or long-distance hiking, a selfish act or does it in someway benefit others and further society?
Geniunely curious to others' opinions. Former thru-hikers, section hikers, day-hikers and cyber on-lookers need all apply.
No it is not a selfish act.
Everyone does something for their own pleasure. Thru-hiking is not hurting everyone so what make the problem. If someone doesn't work for a while, big deal. As long as they can still support themselves what is the problem.
Wolf
warraghiyagey
02-27-2008, 11:51
I've read anthropological estimates that place the resident native population at 2-3 million in the early colonial era. Economic restitution has been made. All that is a hell of a lot more than most countries would have done. And they were not exterminated, Pol Pot-style, as marxist history professors love to state.
Well what's 3 to 4 to 8 million corpses amongst friends anyway. You may have missed ceratain 'anthropological estimates' that put the native american poulation at 6 to 10 million - a much more widely accepted number.
They were exterminated - The Trail of Tears is but one story that lasted less than a year about the way the 'Indain Problem' was 'handled' over the course of nearly three hundred years.
Yes they warred among each other, they also lived among each other - same as the Europeans in their native land warred and lived before they settled here and took everything.
They also fed the first settlers when they were at risk of dying in the first winters.
If you read a few more books and listen to the attrocities of the actions of the settlers here, you also may not be able to stomach what was done to the native population - there is no way to justify it - yet somehow we continue to everyday - and teach our children to look the other way - or simply lie about it in the texts we give them to learn 'American History.'
Rape, babies with their heads stoved in, genital mutilation of those killed, persistent hounding from east to west until they were all consigned to postage stamps on this great land.
We can hide from the truth - but it doesn't make it any less true.
Lone Wolf
02-27-2008, 11:52
No it is not a selfish act.
sure it is. it's all about you, yourself. not a bad thing
Selfishness can have tremendous benefit for others: my personal desire to cure my own child from illness can cause me to discover the cause of disease, invent a new medicine, politic for better health care, or learn a new way to pray.
In The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith described this as the invisible hand.
"he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it......It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
Gordon Geiko summed up what Adam Smith meant with the quote in the movie Wall Street, "greed is good"
sure it is. it's all about you, yourself. not a bad thing
ditto
RadioFreq
02-27-2008, 12:18
Yeah, well, um,..... basically........it's all about me. :o
Tipi Walter
02-27-2008, 12:31
If using up resources is selfish and living without such consumption is less selfish, then I'd say anyone living on the AT for 5 or 6 months or anyone living outdoors permanently uses much less water, electricity, gasoline, vehicle wear and tear, roads and all the rest. One of the things that happens to someone living outdoors is that they do not have the bills that so consume the consumers.
I'd say anyone who can go thru life and "live simply", especially out of a backpack, is setting an example this whole country needs to follow.
Well here ya' go Sly!!!
Selfish as defined by Webster's:
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
Could ya' say you hike for yourself without thinking about others, isn't a bad thing, just the fact that you put yourself first. If you do then by definition...you are selfish.
I think most of us can say we hike for our own advantage, pleasure, and well-being. Like I said doesn't make any of us bad or evil people.
I had multiple reasons for attempting a thru hike, one of which was to give my wife a break from having me kicking around the house all day.
So I wasn't selfish.
Weary
Bad day at the office, Sly? ;)
Yeah, the high speed DSL connection I'm using sucks and that pisses me off. :mad:
Almost There
02-27-2008, 13:25
Bottom line, too many of you see the word selfish as bad or negative. It isn't, but some of you don't want to seem to wrap your minds around it.
Disregard: To pay no attention to.
Once again not bad by and of itself, it could be bad depending on what is happening around the person, or it could have zero effect.
Acts we do for our own pleasure or positive sense of self are selfish.
Rich man opens a hospital...selfish in part, does it make him feel good, does he get a tax right off? Not entirely selfless. There can be acts that are both parts selfish and selfless.
Humans are neither entirely good or evil, so why is it bad to be selfish?
warraghiyagey
02-27-2008, 13:34
Bottom line, too many of you see the word selfish as bad or negative. It isn't, but some of you don't want to seem to wrap your minds around it.
Disregard: To pay no attention to.
Once again not bad by and of itself, it could be bad depending on what is happening around the person, or it could have zero effect.
Acts we do for our own pleasure or positive sense of self are selfish.
Rich man opens a hospital...selfish in part, does it make him feel good, does he get a tax right off? Not entirely selfless. There can be acts that are both parts selfish and selfless.
Humans are neither entirely good or evil, so why is it bad to be selfish?
The word is rapt with negative connotations in this society. And the dictionary definition doesn't abate this fact. It's a negative word. The enjoyment of hiking shouldn't have to be equated to it. It's no wonder that A-Train hasn't responded. It seems he just dropped a little bomb to watch the fireworks and that is really disheartening. To introduce a thread where it's positied that hiking or thru-hiking has a negative meaning - that's a bummer, and the fact that there's people out there that get joy out of doing these things is equally disenchanting - especially on a site devoted to hiking and the AT.
This thread stunk from the Title onward.
Is day hiking selfish, is section hiking selfish?
Lone Wolf
02-27-2008, 13:41
Is day hiking selfish, is section hiking selfish?
yup. it's self-serving. it's all about you. not a bad thing
yup. it's self-serving. it's all about you. not a bad thing
Self serving? It's a walk in the woods. Stop being so PC, it's unbecoming.
This thread stunk from the Title onward.
I disagree. I haven't had much luck getting my point (or A-Train's) point across, but I think it's one that deserves consideration.
Neither A-Train nor I mean to denigrate hiking or hikers. It's more about why we do it, and who benefits. And deluding ourselves that it's altruistic, which it's not.
Lone Wolf
02-27-2008, 13:45
Self serving? It's a walk in the woods. Stop being so PC, it's unbecoming.
it's serving youself. you're walking for you.
take-a-knee
02-27-2008, 13:52
In The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith described this as the invisible hand.
"he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it......It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
Gordon Geiko summed up what Adam Smith meant with the quote in the movie Wall Street, "greed is good"
ditto
So, are you saying that Adam Smith, economist and moral philosopher and mythical creation-of-hollywood Gordon Geko are moral equivalents? If you are I wonder if you realize how indoctrinated your marxist mindset truly is?
marxist shmarxist :rolleyes: back to 'ignore' with you...
Self serving? It's a walk in the woods. Stop being so PC, it's unbecoming.
http://www.appalachiantrailservices.com/pics/smilies/qqb011.gifLone Wolf being PC?! Now THAT'S funny.... http://www.appalachiantrailservices.com/pics/smilies/qqb006.gif
So, are you saying that Adam Smith, economist and moral philosopher and mythical creation-of-hollywood Gordon Geko are moral equivalents? If you are I wonder if you realize how indoctrinated your marxist mindset truly is?
I was only saying his quote, "greed is good" summarizes Adam Smith's invisible hand concept.
But how does that make me a Marxist? Marxism has "each according to their ability, each according to their need" as its foundation. Please explain.
DesertMTB
02-27-2008, 14:27
Pftt. Selfish? Who cares. Of all the impulses humans have, hiking is the least of worries.
Some of you people think too much.
Metaphor Man
02-27-2008, 14:43
A walk, or any action for us homo sapiens and our large frontal lobes, has moral and ethical dimensions while also having a dimension one might call the "art" of the action. That action-as-art can manifest in a single step as well as a long journey.
Is it "good" to be artful about a walk in the woods? Maybe to the extent that the walk reflects a knowing/feeling harmony with the surround, it is good art. Is it "bad" is the walker doesn't have this "insight?" This is actually a poor question. People meet their environment where they are at emotionally/intellectually.
As long as they aren't needlessly harming others or the flora and fauna, their "walk" will be what it is for them and I wish them well on their journey, be it armchair or thru.
Almost There
02-27-2008, 16:27
The word is rapt with negative connotations in this society. And the dictionary definition doesn't abate this fact. It's a negative word. The enjoyment of hiking shouldn't have to be equated to it. It's no wonder that A-Train hasn't responded. It seems he just dropped a little bomb to watch the fireworks and that is really disheartening. To introduce a thread where it's positied that hiking or thru-hiking has a negative meaning - that's a bummer, and the fact that there's people out there that get joy out of doing these things is equally disenchanting - especially on a site devoted to hiking and the AT.
This thread stunk from the Title onward.
Just like the attitude of some that people who have sex before marriage,gay couples, or unwed mothers are wrong....does this make any of these people bad??? Being selfish isn't wrong, it's your opinion of what is selfish that's screwed up. I know the connotation, it's that selfish people put themselves first even if it hurts others...but that's simply taking the word out of context. I don't care what people think...I care about what is. Nothing wrong with getting joy out of a selfish act, most people's joys are derived from selfish acts. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.
Personally I didn't take the thread starter as being negative, when I taught psychology we discussed this point in a lesson, and the conclusion of my class was neither positive or negative, unless it affects others, and then depending on that effect you can make the determination of positive or negative.
Seeing as hiking quite often affects us in positive, joyous way it ends up being good for us and those around us who share in our joy.
Neither A-Train nor I mean to denigrate hiking or hikers. It's more about why we do it, and who benefits. And deluding ourselves that it's altruistic, which it's not.
The topic is about thru-hiking being selfish, it's not about not being altruistic, nor being virtuous. Just because I benefit from thru-hiking doesn't mean I, or others, are being selfish. For a thru-hiker to be selfish they'd have race to the shelter to get the last spot, they'd have to not help others when injured, they'd have to stiff waitstaff, they'd have to leave the trail worse than they found it, etc, etc, etc.
If you saw the mini series "The Stand" or read the book. Then you know that close to the end the leaders had to walk from Boulder to Las Vegas. This was to empty them out and recharge there spirits.
I spent 5 months on the trail last year, and I think or atleast hope that I am a better person for it.
Great mini series ..... the trek was also to strengthen their mind and "body" for the "battle" at the end. When you think about it ... isn't that what we are doing when we THRU-HIKE ...... we test ourselves to see if we have what it takes to SURVIVE. Could you survive being alone (as much as the AT will let you be :rolleyes:) fending for yourself. If your little niche in the world was gone :eek:...... would you have the strength of body and mind to WALK several thousand miles to find a new life?
:-? How many of you can look at yourself, right now, and say "I AM READY FOR THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN?"
If you were ready you would not be sitting in front of that computer reading this.
Ask yourself this "Where should I be?"
ON THE AT OF COURSE! :bse
HEY! then ask yourself "Can I face the battle at the end?" [with job, friends, family] :datz
SELFISH????? ..... NO! ..... SENSIBLE! IMO
The word is rapt with negative connotations in this society. And the dictionary definition doesn't abate this fact. It's a negative word. The enjoyment of hiking shouldn't have to be equated to it. It's no wonder that A-Train hasn't responded. It seems he just dropped a little bomb to watch the fireworks and that is really disheartening. To introduce a thread where it's positied that hiking or thru-hiking has a negative meaning - that's a bummer, and the fact that there's people out there that get joy out of doing these things is equally disenchanting - especially on a site devoted to hiking and the AT.
This thread stunk from the Title onward.
The only thing that stinks from the (trail)title on is you. I did answer, in fact about 28 posts before you insulted me and thread I started. I wrote a small novel there, but I guess you overlooked it, desiring to drag my name thru the mud.
I didn't "drop a bomb", I posed a question for people to think over. Seems most folks actually got something out of it and some good conversation ensued. I didn't introduce a thread that said hiking is negative. I think it's somewhat selfish compared to other things, but that selfish is not negative.
The only negative thing here is you Warraghey..whatever. If you were so offended by the thread and title, why the heck did you bother contributing to it multiple times??
take-a-knee
02-27-2008, 17:09
I was only saying his quote, "greed is good" summarizes Adam Smith's invisible hand concept.
But how does that make me a Marxist? Marxism has "each according to their ability, each according to their need" as its foundation. Please explain.
The essence of marxist professors is the adhominem attack on the producers, you're equating the founder of Western economic theory with a hollywood attack on free market principals (Gecko) goes a bit deeper than you realize. Gecko was the personification of the Robber Baron, the "Railroader", not a free man with a vision and the liberty to pursue it.
Adam Smith was also a philosopher who thought a great deal about morality and he wrote extensively about how the free market would never work if the Geckos of the world were allowed to run it.
Wolf - 23000
02-27-2008, 18:01
sure it is. it's all about you, yourself. not a bad thing
And what about the stories that we all share with one another?
Wolf
Dances with Mice
02-27-2008, 18:02
And what about the stories that we all share with one another?OK, so there's also a downside....
Moderation in all things, including moderation.
I mean...is any vacation selfish? I guess it could be percieved as more selfish if someone left behind needy dependants or abandoned some responsiblity. So technically selfish, yes, but not necessarily with any negative connotation without context. Also, I guess some people do it to raise money or draw attention to some charity.
I did it to get away from responsibilities and have fun. Utterly selfish in every way. Worth it, too.
The essence of marxist professors is the adhominem attack on the producers, you're equating the founder of Western economic theory with a hollywood attack on free market principals (Gecko) goes a bit deeper than you realize. Gecko was the personification of the Robber Baron, the "Railroader", not a free man with a vision and the liberty to pursue it.
Adam Smith was also a philosopher who thought a great deal about morality and he wrote extensively about how the free market would never work if the Geckos of the world were allowed to run it.
I never equated Gecko's morals to those of Adam Smith. I simply said the quote, "greed is good", explains Adam Smith's invisible hand concept. I did not attack free market principles. In the movie Gecko was a cheating SOB, how ever his pursuit of wealth was OK, the cheating was wrong. Cheating does not make a person a Marxist, it simply makes them a criminal. Marxist believe the pursuit of wealth is wrong. Gecko is not a Marxist and neither am I.
Time To Fly 97
02-27-2008, 19:17
"Selfish" has a kind of a negative sound to it. Hiking the AT is like going off to school, or staying at a monestary to be closer to God, or going on an extended health improvement regimen. This is a blessed endeavor that will change the life of a Thru-hiker for good (pun). Have you ever heard anyone say: I see you are going off to try to better yourself...how selfish.
I think a thru-hike is anything but selfish. The selfishness is rather in the jealous eyes of the not so blessed.
Happy hiking!
Time To Fly
I think if everyone spent 6 months alone in the great outdoors by themselves the world would be a better place.
Well said, thank you Time! All the curmudgeons can stick it! :p
"Selfish" has a kind of a negative sound to it. Hiking the AT is like going off to school, or staying at a monestary to be closer to God, or going on an extended health improvement regimen. This is a blessed endeavor that will change the life of a Thru-hiker for good (pun). Have you ever heard anyone say: I see you are going off to try to better yourself...how selfish.
I think a thru-hike is anything but selfish. The selfishness is rather in the jealous eyes of the not so blessed.
Happy hiking!
Time To Fly
Skidsteer
02-27-2008, 20:36
I think if everyone spent 6 months alone in the great outdoors by themselves the world would be a better place.
Welcome to WB, Figures.
I suspect most AT thru-hikers never spend six days alone, nevermind six months. :)
CrumbSnatcher
02-27-2008, 21:32
get busy living or get busy dying. who cares if it is selfish.
If you don't ever treat yourself to the finer things in life, you're bound to be a miserable S.O.B. - someone that nobody would want to hang around with. If you take care of yourself emotionally by going into the woods (up a mountain, into the desert, on the ocean, etc. etc.) you'll be happier and easier to be around. Plus, you'll have something to talk about besides yourself.
Why does this have to be a moral dilemma?
Why does this have to be a moral dilemma?
I've been thinking about that, and the related question of, "why is hiking singled out" as being selfish. I'm guessing it's the overall time involved. There are a lots of other recreations to soak up our time... but thru-hiking takes us out of the "real world" for months at a time.
I never said or thought that hiking (day, weekend, section or thru) was a bad thing to do. Far from it. But I've often thought, while planning a hike or while hiking, of what else I could or should be doing instead.
Getting away from society or civilization are often cited as reasons for hiking. But what are we getting away from? If society or civilization are eff'ed up, are we really addressing that by hiking? Or are we just running away from that monstrous mess? :-?
As I said before in this thread, bottom line, for me....it is selfish.
However, it is intricate. Others might see it as selfish on your part to go trampsing all over. If one takes it all apart, you do it for a reason. Most times the reason is just for more than walking. Spiritual, fitness, love of outside, etc.
We may make it a "selfish" thing deliberately. Not wanting others who dont feel the same way as you when you are out there.
I have to think though, most "selfish" stamps are brought on by others who want you to play to the expectations of what your "supposed" to do. In other words- someone elses plan.
"selfish" sometimes has to rule
Time To Fly 97
02-28-2008, 09:28
Well said, thank you Time! All the curmudgeons can stick it! :p
lol Right ON
Happy hiking!
TTF
Almost There
02-28-2008, 09:50
See here's the thing...I don't see selfish as good or bad, it just is what it is.
Some of you see it as bad and so get offended when you see hiking called a selfish act...I just see selfish as something you do for yourself and essentially no one else. Some have formed their own definition, different from the one found in most dictionaries. Again that's fine, but don't get all clenched up over being told that you hike for yourself first and foremost....you have to live life for you, why do you find being told that as offensive?
As I said before in this thread, bottom line, for me....it is selfish.....
And for me it is a meaningless concept. The implication is that thru hiking is more selfish than other things people do for recreation. I maintain it is no more selfish than golf, bowling, watching sports on television, reading novels, studying philosophers, chatting on web sites.... the list is endless.
There may be a subset of hikers who are more selfish than the above activites -- thruhiking and leaving a spouse and kids home with no income for food and shelter. But those at best are a very tiny minority.
Thru hiking is selfish, only if maximizing your income every waking hour, or every six months, is not selfish.
The truly selfish are those who maximize their participation in pleasurable things and contribute nothing towards the wellbeing of society.
Weary www.matlt.org
warraghiyagey
02-28-2008, 13:04
get busy living or get busy dying. who cares if it is selfish.
Shawshank Redemption
And for me it is a meaningless concept. The implication is that thru hiking is more selfish than other things people do for recreation. I maintain it is no more selfish than golf, bowling, watching sports on television, reading novels, studying philosophers, chatting on web sites.... the list is endless.
There may be a subset of hikers who are more selfish than the above activites -- thruhiking and leaving a spouse and kids home with no income for food and shelter. But those at best are a very tiny minority.
Thru hiking is selfish, only if maximizing your income every waking hour, or every six months, is not selfish.
The truly selfish are those who maximize their participation in pleasurable things and contribute nothing towards the wellbeing of society.
Weary www.matlt.org (http://www.matlt.org)
LOL. Based on my situation, I am being selfish to leave a dis-interested non-hiker to go rambling once, twice a month and longer sometimes. It is for me (and my sons when they go) , for my well-being I do this. More-so in the fact that 90 percent of who I hike with my better half doesnt even know well.
"selfish" as it applies in this context cant be define in an overall definition. Too many situations, to many ways to look at it.
Really, the only reason I am coming up with a position on it. Is due to this thread. I never even think about being "selfish". However , I am.
Well said, thank you Time! All the curmudgeons can stick it! :p
Daddy, can I be a curmudgeon when I grow up? :D They have all the fun.....:banana
camojack
02-29-2008, 02:15
Anything we do for ourselves is inherently selfish; that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing.
Self-preservation is selfish too, but it's kind of the norm. :-?
Here's a picture of me from a hike last week:
3474
I'll be the first to admit to having selfish tendencies... :banana:jump
desdemona
03-05-2008, 23:32
I've never done a thru-hike, but I don't believe in the term to apply to something that you do for/with yourself. I suppose that if you left other responsibilities it would be. But I am guessing most people do this in some kind of in-between position that allows this.
Selfish is a loaded term implying caring only for oneself or at the expense of others somehow. If it is just something you do for yourself with no one at stake, it is no more selfish than taking a bubble bath (ableit quite a long one :-)), frequent day hikes, a hobby, or going online.
--des
dessertrat
03-05-2008, 23:44
The question is not whether you are selfish. The question is, how big is your self?
The question is not whether you are selfish. The question is, how big is your self?
Actually, the question was...
Curious as to what others think about this. Is thru-hiking, or long-distance hiking, a selfish act or does it in someway benefit others and further society?
It appears to be an either/or or trick question. Like are you still beating your wife? As I said before either you're selfish or you're not, thru-hiking, per se, doesn't have anything to do with it.
However, yes, it could benefit others or further society.
fiddlehead
03-06-2008, 00:42
define selfish and define responsible.
I think back to when i was thru-hiking every other year and traveling overseas on the years in between. was i selfish? irresponsible?
First of all, i didn't care. what was i supposed to do? stay home and work? for what? more money? more stuff? newer car? Is it being selfish to not want, need or crave those things? Maybe in some minds, certainly not mine.
Now, that i have a kid, i have a whole new sense of responsibility. I am no longer only responsible to my own self. This also means i don't thru-hike anymore.
Yes, the reason is cause it would now be irresponsible for me to leave my kid. But before i had a kid?
Hey, life is priorities. Stay home and work if you want and badmouth those who follow their dreams.
I don't think it bothers then in the least!
However, yes, it could benefit others or further society.
If so, that would be a secondary effect. The immediate beneficiary is the hiker. Just like a six-month long bubble bath, LOL. ;) :D :rolleyes: :)
Mr. Parkay
03-06-2008, 00:48
I like the term "Healthily Selfish" which was mentioned earlier in the thread. That pretty much sums up how I feel about it.
However, in regard to how selfish is actually is, I consider thru-hiking to be much less selfish than how people live at home. We live in huge houses, when we could easily downgrade and give the difference to charity. We enjoy TV, CD Players, books, expensive restaurants, nice cars and etc. etc., all of which are unnecessary luxuries. Basically, I'm trying to say that our society is inherently selfish in nearly every respect... and thru-hiking is no different.
Hiking is my selfishness of choice.
--Parkay
By the way, I'm not trying to say that any of this stuff is wrong. I like being selfish.
Stay home and work if you want and badmouth those who follow their dreams.
That's not what A-Train was about, and I think you know that.
whitefoot_hp
03-13-2008, 15:22
Well, think about. selfishness is usually more identifiable if we consider motivation. In other words, why are you thru hiking? To have fun? To indulge? If yes, then this is 'self-related' but now what do we call selfishness? I don't see how any thru-hike can be truly self-less.
any number of actions can be considered 'selfish'. After all, we are all concerned with our selves, to a certain extent. we all want to eat, breathe , and be comfortable. Usually, when some one goes over the perceived lines here, or prioritizes these concerns rather intensely, and does little else, we call him 'selfish.'
Thru Hiker Wife
03-13-2008, 15:27
As the wife I say this, thru hiking is selfish but not in the negative connotation. However, thru hikers generally are not selfish as you see in forums such as WB with everyone trying to help others, Trail Magic, etc...
Just my thoughts and, believe me, I've gone through the whole spectrum of thoughts on this one.:D
Thru Hiker Wife
03-13-2008, 15:34
Oh, and the selflessness of hikers does contribute to society. At least for me it did. You just don't come across people very often who will give without expecting something in return. You all do it...offer a ride, let someone yogi, leaving extras behind in the trail boxes for someone else who may need it, etc. I had no clue what Trail Magic was until my husband explained it to me and I thought it was the coolest thing. Kinda like pay it forward. I'll definitely be trying to do my part at Hiawassee next week cause I think it rocks and cause I hope/believe other's will do it for him along the way.
earlyriser26
03-13-2008, 15:41
My wife thinks even section hiking is a selfish act, but having read many books on mountain climbing I feel better. Now there is a sport that is selfish.
Sissygirl
03-13-2008, 15:41
So.. maybe a bit selfish, but if you don't look out for your own well-being, who will? The feeling I get from hiking comes back with me and it impacts my children and others that I am around in a positive way. I am more peaceful and content and surely that can't be wrong.
warraghiyagey
03-14-2008, 01:38
Oh, and the selflessness of hikers does contribute to society. At least for me it did. You just don't come across people very often who will give without expecting something in return. You all do it...offer a ride, let someone yogi, leaving extras behind in the trail boxes for someone else who may need it, etc. I had no clue what Trail Magic was until my husband explained it to me and I thought it was the coolest thing. Kinda like pay it forward. I'll definitely be trying to do my part at Hiawassee next week cause I think it rocks and cause I hope/believe other's will do it for him along the way.
These qualities are some of the very reasons we go to the trail. It's different there, it's absolute peace, and makes the vessel and the spirit stronger.
Thru Hiker Wife
03-14-2008, 09:18
So I'm learning. Not a long distance hiker at heart. Prefer my little day hikes but I must admit, I understand more now than ever that it's a different world.
These qualities are some of the very reasons we go to the trail. It's different there, it's absolute peace, and makes the vessel and the spirit stronger.
middle to middle
03-16-2009, 21:21
It is thoroughly self realization for the long term benefit of all.
superman
03-16-2009, 21:31
Curious as to what others think about this. Is thru-hiking, or long-distance hiking, a selfish act or does it in someway benefit others and further society?
Geniunely curious to others' opinions. Former thru-hikers, section hikers, day-hikers and cyber on-lookers need all apply.
I never cared for one instant if it is selfish. It is the best thing I ever did just for me and I couldn't give a rats butt if it's selfish or has any other redeeming value.:)
JoshStover
08-22-2009, 21:54
I do think that it is selfish but it is something I have always wanted to do. I have put it off several times because I was worrying about others and not wanting to put them out but I am getting married in 2011 and will be starting a family. I HAVE TO do this for myself before the wedding and the children down the road. I think it is ALOT less selfish to do it now before I get hitched and have children...
Zabigail
08-23-2009, 04:01
It isn't selfish to test one's self and push to the furthest limits you have. We all strive to be the best we can be, and I think for some hiking is part of that.