That's true, in an all-out survival situation people tend to take much greater risks (out of sheer desperation I suppose). From what I've read, the participants were actually allowed to hunt game, bear included. But none of them attempted that in practice, probably because they felt the risks were too great. And I can't blame them, they still had the sat phone to "tap out" when things got worse than they could handle.

That said (and talking in general, not directed at any post or opinion in particular), I don't think that takes anything away from the show's basic premise. "Alone" was foremost a challenge to see how long people with varying backgrounds and outdoor skills could last in a relatively tough environment with which they had little or no previous experience.

It was not a true survival situation by definition (e.g. an unexpected disaster). Nor was it really presented as such, at least in my opinion. It was made pretty clear that the contestants could quit whenever they wanted. They also had regular medical checkups. That in itself is a good thing IMO. In some ways the show was already close enough to a "Hunger Games" scenario for my liking. No need to push people into absolute extremes (getting badly hurt or killed) purely for entertainment or "educational" purposes.

Regardless of the above, the basic premise seemed real enough. Whether you call it rough camping, surviving or simply staying in the woods basically on your own for a longer period of time is a very serious challenge pretty much anywhere on Earth. It really is hard if you have to make your own shelter, gather food and try to tough it out for a month or two. I don't think that most people who post here, or the majority of outdoor enthusiasts in general, have ever tried that themselves.

Hence I believe it would be a little out of line to denigrate the contestants or overly criticize their choices. We weren't there, so it's hard to judge other people's actions under the circumstances. Also, having that sat phone at hand was no doubt a very powerful factor because the contestants knew they could quit when they wanted to do so. On the other hand, a sat phone does not guarantee your safety per se. The contestants still risked real injuries. You can get mauled by a bear faster than you can dial a number on a sat phone. How is a rescue team arriving a couple of hours later going to help other than zip your remains into a body bag?

IMHO, these are serious concerns all too easily overlooked these days when reality shows and live video feeds make everything appear fake and occasionally less dangerous than it really is. The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if "survival" shows get even more "real" to satisfy the increasingly demanding viewers. Sooner or later, participants will get hurt, possibly killed. I'm not sure that is a good thing at all.

"Alone" seemed to strike a pretty good balance between "reality" and trying to keep the contestants reasonably safe within a controlled experiment. But it still exposed the contestants to real risks, starvation and difficult weather conditions, which was becoming very apparent toward the end of the show. I wonder how many people would willingly expose themselves to that kind of pressure. So I have a lot of respect for the guys who walked the walk and pushed themselves to the best of their ability.