Implicitly, maybe. However, being disconnected is usually just a perk of getting away.
The problem with getting disconnected is that we don’t want to do it, we are afraid of missing out and we usually invent other activities to rationalize it.
In a sense it’s a bit like enjoying the radio in traffic, taking the long ride home after work. This is not something that you would rationally do unless you have to, but there are some benefits that people are still seeking from it.
If you must for emergencies, bring it turned off locked away, and promise yourself you will only take it out in an emergency. But then you didn't need one for emergencies before it was possible, so I'd argue you still don't need one.
> But then you didn't need one for emergencies before it was possible, so I'd argue you still don't need one.
No, people didn't have phones, satellite messengers etc. Nor did we have penicillin or water filters, and as a result, people sometimes died from (by today's measure) trivially preventable causes.
So that's not a very good argument for not bringing a phone or satellite beacon/messenger on a hike – permanently connected and livestreaming, turned off and at the bottom of your backpack, or anything in between. The choice is all yours!
That would be irrational, the trick of going somewhere far away is that you rationalize it through something else and you don’t have the option to have the Internet or the phone.
No one goes somewhere far away, explicitly for being disconnected, that’s an implicit goal.
Otherwise, you can just turn off your phone do I have to leave it.
so, uh, I lived in the Yukon for 4 years and have spent months in the Arctic Circle and all over AK and Yukon. I drove from Alaska to Argentina, I drove right around Africa and I drove around Australia, including the world's most remote 4x4 track - 1,050 miles in ten days without seeing another person or vehicle.
I, umm, know a thing or two about going remote without communications.
