By David Aguasca
Modern technology, whether we realize it or not, plays a large role in wilderness expedition. Advancements in electronics and materials have changed the way humans interact with their environment, and this applies to those who go on expeditions, too. While individually, the current new technologies may seem magical at times, in the scope of technology in the outdoors in the last 100 years, they are not that surprising. After all, the advent of synthetic fabrics and powerful communication technologies has changed the way we live and travel in the backcountry, forever. The only difference is that the rate of improvements may be rising.
New technology is introduced with the intention of making wilderness expeditions more convenient, safer, or more comfortable. Plastics have allowed us to make raingear that is truly waterproof, such as rubber raincoats or urethane-coated rain flies. Small, portable, battery powered radios allow communication across large distances. These are not new technologies in the sense that the SteriPen or GPS are groundbreaking, but at one point there were new. When they are introduced, every technology is subjected to testing and culling process more powerful and elegant than any research and development firm could design; the end user buys it, tries it, and decides whether the technology is worthwhile. If the technology does not work, eventually it will not survive, as no one will purchase it. Absolutely every technology must pass this test in order to continue to be used, regardless of how fancy or amazing the sales claims may be.
As adventure educators, we are viewed and approached as experts on the backcountry life and the methods used to live it; this includes technology. Our gear choices for gear and our opinions will affect many end users, and it’s important to keep this in mind. Every new technology must be approached with a healthy amount of skepticism. Relying solely on a new technology is a terrible idea, until it has proven itself. Once it has, I’d say it’s only a mildly bad idea. The fragility and importance of a technology must be considered in these cases: the SteriPen is a great example. Before it was a proven technology, carrying a back-up water purification method was recommended, especially if you are responsible for a group. Even now, when it’s been proven to actually be even more effective than chemical water purification, it’s not too inconvenient to carry the chemical method too–just in case.
Reliance on these technologies involves a balance of responsibility and skill. GPS technology promises us worry-free navigation; the reality is that when leading a group on an expedition, you must still have your map and compass skills well honed. A satphone can provide communication with the frontcountry in the case of an emergency or change of plans; it does not replace good planning. Many of these technologies seem to alleviate responsibility, or are used to substitute skill. They should in fact be approached as tools, used to enhance the available resources.
The question of legal responsibility complicates things considerably (as the law usually does when introduced to a situation). When someone leading a group relies solely on a technology that subsequently fails (like trusting all your route finding to a GPS), they will be viewed as negligent.
The field of adventure education has been greatly improved by technology, but it must be tested before becoming the industry standard. That is our responsibility as professionals in the field.
