For me, unless I have a fixer or plan to return many times, there are situations that I end up "seeing less" without a phone (or at least a good book that expla

For me, unless I have a fixer or plan to return many times, there are situations that I end up "seeing less" without a phone (or at least a good book that explains the culture). A place is not just a place. There are many layers on top of it. A phone lets you explore those layers by googling (at least this is how I travel). This is especially true of modern technological societies where there are layers of society you cannot interact with without a phone. See something culturally weird? Google it and read the explanation. Stuff happening in another part of town? Phone tells you about it. I write stories about my travels, and pictures help me recall those experiences after the fact (and notice new details). This isn't everyone but it's me. Goes to show that saying a piece of tech categorically enhances or diminishes an experience is bound to invite disagreement--because it depends on who's using it. I don't think it was the author's intention to polarize, but travel touches a raw nerve for many because for many it is an aspirational/elevating experience. Any prescription, especially those contrary to the lived experiences of many, is bound to be emotionally charged -- it's not a take it or leave it kind of opinion. p.s. for me personally, I've traveled many years with/without phone (I'm Gen X) -- and for me, having a phone has undeniably led to a richer, deeper experience.