“As they planned the trip, however, Ostrem and Wernstedt-Lynch noticed a pattern. People who lived in the borderlands—the activists, ranchers, and Rio Grande guides they contacted while mapping out their route—tended to be more encouraging than those who lived in the hikers’ respective home states of Kentucky and Maryland.”
This mirrors most of my experience for travel advice. Why do people give advice when they haven’t been there and don’t know anyone that has?!?
> Why do people give advice when they haven’t been there and don’t know anyone that has?!?
Well, TBF you probably wouldn't give advice to visit, say, Aleppo right now, or jump off a cliff, even though I doubt you've done either.
And so I think people generalize with the same heuristic: Someone from Minnesota or someone from Brownsville sees the same Fox News and gets the same fear; they know it's OK where they are so the danger must be someplace they haven't been.
It's the same reason a person might be racist or have strong prejudicial opinions even though they know and are friends of the prejudiced group: "well my friend is the exception". I have actually been on the receiving end of that!
I agree it's dumb, but the above seems like a reasonable explanation.
I agree that’s a reasonable explanation of why it happens, I still find it frustrating.
Aleppo is a great example. Why would I advise someone not to go? Without knowing who they are, when they’re going and for what purpose, it seems preposterous that any advice would be given at all. Asking a few questions would highlight if they’re making an informed decision and if they possess the information I hold. There are reasonable reasons to be going to Syria (soldier, aid worker, contractor, reporter) and repeating the last headline read is not useful.
As for jumping off a cliff, isn’t that cliff diving? If you mean suicide, hopefully you have first hand experience on the value of life, which could be provided as useful advice.
My frustration is how quickly people provide their opinions as advice, often oblivious to how informed the receiver is on the given subject.
> Repeatedly throughout the trip, they would hear that the really dangerous area started 50 miles ahead. When they reached that section, the locals there would say the same thing.
It's remarkable how local people's knowledge is, even in this day and age.
The country was still adjusting to the soon-to-be presidency of Donald Trump. “It felt really wrong and go out and disappear into the wilderness for five or six months,” Ostrem says.
> With the estimated U.S. military spending of $892 billion[link] it is kind of mind blowing that we cannot secure 2000-mile stretch of land that is the southern border
If we needed to secure it against a conventional military invasion, that military spending would make it easy, sure. Or if we were willing to treat unlawful entry as equivalent to invasion (which isn't just enforcing along the border with deadly force, but cutting the lines by which people and contraband arrive there at the points most militarily vulnerable with deadly force as well.) But that's an insane approach to any actual problem on the border, and no US government had been that insane, so military spending is pretty irrelevant.
You are right. Of course it could be secured tomorrow but nobody, not the most far right republican politians (I hope) , want a full scale military operation on US soil.
For the same reason we don't send Apache helicopters with hellfire missiles after gangs in cities. It doesn't even bear thinking about.
Are you kiddin' me? They've completed the AT and the PCT. they're insanely experienced hikers.
I consider myself a pretty experienced hiker and I wouldn't even attempt either of those two. Not sure where you're getting your information but it doesn't seem to be this article.
What motivation would the GP's hypothetical smuggler have, to cause harm to a couple backpackers? I can imagine a person in ISIS might be motivated to harm a couple Americans, but am not seeing the connection here.
I live 30 miles from the Mexico border along multiple heavily used smuggling routes. I hike and backpack frequently in mountains used by those smugglers and have encountered groups of smugglers many times over the last 7+ years. I have never seen them armed, nor have I ever felt threatened by them. In almost every encounter, they get off the trail and move away before we get close, or if they get startled and there's no time to really do that, they just sort of keep their heads down and pass quickly. Everyone I know who hikes in the region, including a former Border Patrol agent who worked this area for 6+ years (and never saw an armed smuggler), has had a similar experience.
Edit: There are some areas along the border where smugglers are reported to be armed more frequently, but this is almost exclusively in areas where two cartels compete for smuggling routes and their weapons are carried to defend against the other cartels, not to use against civilians or law enforcement. They don't want to get caught with weapons in the U.S., as that significantly increases their legal exposure vs. just bales of marijuana.
Yeah, it's like Phoenix "the kidnapping capital". Mostly just cartel members kidnapping other cartel members until they give up the drugs where your common citizen doesn't ever have to worry about it.
There was a story a while back where a girl got snatched (for leverage to get the drugs her father was sitting on) and when the kidnappers figured out they got the intended victim's friend instead they just let her go with a "umm, yeah, our bad".
Not to discount the issue, though. There are cases where the human smugglers keep people hostage until the families come up with extra money and/or sell them into slavery which is definitely no bueno.
I street raced in the Bronx and NYC during the mid to late 70's: packs of wild dogs roamed the streets, burned out buildings as far as the eye could see, and every drug known to Man was sold openly. Back then it had the highest murder rate per capita in the country. I lived through it... but I was lucky I was never shot--came real close from a Crip one night after I waxed his ass, but he didn't fire the gun he had pointed at my face, sheer luck that. Criminals kill people just because they can. That's a fact. You probably never spent enough time alone in a dangerous place frequented by dangerous people.
Boy thats an exciting story, and written from the perspective of such an interesting character! My favorite part of the story is when the protagonist met the gang member.
Some notes: crips didn't really exist in nyc until about 20 years ago, so it might be more believable if you changed the gang member's affiliation (Latin Kings maybe? I think they were around then). Also, no one says "waxed his ass", it makes you sound super corny. Keep at it though, eventually you'll nail that hard-boiled detective thing you're going for :)
I know, you're right; it was complete BullShit, and the reason he didn't kill me Was Not because I matter of Factly told him "I don't give a fuck" when he screamed "I'm gonna kill you" while pointing make believe gun at me.
But whatever... you're the big expert on my life (and phrases racers say and the timeline of the arrival of gangs in NYC,) and have certainly mixed with more dangerous people than I have. ;)
And yep, for sure nobody ever got shot for no real fucking reason in the city back then, nor in Mexico nowadays. Crime is made up by Fox News.. and gangs--they don't exist.
> Criminals kill people just because they can. That's a fact.
If it is a fact, I don't think it's a fact that is supported by your anecdote. You removed the hair from this guy's butt! While I don't think your perhaps uninvited waxing was a good justification for a shooting, it's just as disconnected from the situation we were discussing as the ISIS example.
It’s relevant to people who think that the world is basically a safe place. It isn’t — that’s an illusion held by people in particularly safe countries. It’s an illusion that people in say, Yemen, rarely hold.
Disagree. There are bad people and good people. People often move between those categories depending on incentives, the particulars of the situation, societal pressure and their own inclinations.
You SHOULD have a look around, but with the understanding that you may run into bad people. DISCERNMENT is the highest value when venturing into unexplored territory, not naivete.
Again, I don't think they were/are naive. They were "discerning" to borrow your word, in evaluating the challenges of the walk and responses to them.
The other part of your post makes it sound like you believe Santa Claus maintains the authoritative naughty/nice registry; I just don't think the world is so simple.
I should clarify, I was responding to your statement that "people are generally good". I'm not so sure of that. People are good and bad in ways I highlighted above (e.g. look at Milgram Experiments and Stanford Prison Experiment).
