I understand your point of view and it is a perfectly valid argument for someone stranded in the wilderness whose primary concern is getting back to civilization. That kind of (hopefully short-term) survival situation generally calls for solid land navigation skills plus a good measure of physical and mental toughness, particularly if one is required to cover a long distance in order to reach safety.

Honestly though, that is not what "Alone" was about. The show was nothing more, nothing less than an experiment at long-term survival limited to a relatively small designated area where the participants needed to build a shelter and procure sufficient water and food to last for as long as possible.

Is that premise artificial? Maybe, if one assumes that the only chance of wilderness survival lies in getting back to civilization. But the contestants were trying to achieve the exact opposite. They set out to test their skills and survive in their designated area for as long as they could with the gear they were allowed to bring. That is an entirely legitimate challenge IMO. Why would it not be legitimate? Or any less legitimate than say, mountain climbing? Besides, the basic idea is not too different from what the early colonists, mountain men and trappers were facing in the old days.

We've all contributed our own personal views on "Alone" here. The discussion has grown into a pretty long and (to my mind at least) stimulating thread. Both positive and negative opinions have been expressed, which is to be expected. However, I don't think it makes sense to dismiss the show as artificial simply because its premise is not what one would like it to be. Note that the show is called "Alone", not "Wilderness Survival 101" or "Escape from Vancouver Island". There are other TV series with different premises, some (like Ray Mears) pretty darn good and instructive.

As far as "Alone", it is what it is. A televised outdoor challenge, not that badly done as far as reality TV goes (for a bad case of heartburn think of Bear Grylls!). And it does have some wider educational value IMHO. On the one hand, it helps dispel many popular survivalist/new age fantasies about the ease of living off the land. On the other hand, it shows how ten outdoorsmen from different backgrounds failed or succeeded at putting to the test various bushcraft and wilderness survival skills.