It’s a bit weird reading an article in the New York Times that is, more or less, about yourself…or more accurately, about people in your situation. As those of you who know me personally know, I do not own a cell phone. But the reasons offered or proposed in the article don’t really describe my situation. Essentially, I just don’t feel the need: the need to call people constantly with pointless updates of my situation (we’ve become a world of Tony Robertses in Play it Again Sam…), the need to be constantly available to anyone with my number, etc. I’m pretty sure I’d feel differently if we had kids, or if I traveled a lot, or if I didn’t have internet access at home and work. But I don’t really feel like I’m making any sort of noble gesture: when I did have a cell phone, I mostly just never bothered to use it, and since I never bothered to use it, few people bothered to call me on it…and so, when we decided a few years ago to cut back on needless expenses, it was one of the first things to go. And I haven’t missed it.
I may well end up getting a cell phone more or less incidentally: again through Rose’s job, if she upgrades her phone and buys an iPhone, the service deal the company offers is cheaper for two than for two individuals – so I’d get an iPhone. (Otherwise I’d probably just get an iPod Touch.)
But there’s no deep principle I feel I’m upholding, and if I were seriously inconvenienced I’d just go ahead and buy one.