10 ms·

Free Solo and Economic Growth

101 points by portobello 7y ago

dpflan 7y ago
Regarding economic growth and growth theories, I found Dr. Paul Romer's (2018 Economics winner) Nobel Prize Lecture on his work, economic growth theories, and hope for the future to be excellent and stimulating. > Paul M. Romer: Lecture in Economic Sciences 2018 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZmgZGIZtiM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZmgZGIZtiM > Nobel Page: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/romer/lecture/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/rom...
- lpcam33 7y ago
  In the video the economist talks about progress just as if progress is the end in itself, but is not. We need to have a goal in order to progress to that goal. To have infinite progress is the same to say that at least one of this things: We don’t know where we want to go; We are infinitely greed; We are infinitely incompetent; We can use the example of the rope. There was many technological progress in the last decades to manufacture good gear for climbing, but as time goes by we will need to spend much more resources in research to get less and less improvements on the rope. There will be a time were the climber needs are fulfilled and we could just spare the nature (ex: the mountains that they like to climb) and enjoy what we have accomplished.
tomxor 7y ago
Not to detract too much from the author's point... But as a climber myself, I think climbing technology does actually contribute to advances in pure climbing skill more than you might think. Take just a single aspect of the gear - climbing rope, modern rope is a technological wonder, light, super strong and extremely dynamic, it's part of what makes it possible to push yourself to the limit and repeatedly fall off routes safely, with zero injury. After a certain point you cannot improve in climbing without pushing beyond your limits and failing, modern technology allows you to push further and further and survive and retain your skills, and this is a significant part of why the pure climbing skill of climbers today is so advanced. The author has made the same observation but ignoring climbing technology and focusing on internet etc for spread of knowledge - but there are many skills that do not survive conceptualization and communication in tact, for those, you need specialist technology to advance your learning beyond the basics. Go back 80 years, you will find weak, heavy hemp rope, rope harnesses that will probably kill you, and people literally carried rocks as gear, shoving them in cracks with the rope behind them. It's not hard to see how limiting this is in learning the skill, as you move forward in time gear becomes more advanced but still very heavy.
- moredhel 7y ago
  I agree that more modern climbing gear is fantastic and definitely gives me a great deal of confidence when I am pushing my limits, I don't think that it would stop me from pushing at all. Even using gear from 30-40 years ago, it is possible to climb with relative safety, the new gear is mainly only an incremental improvement in safety. That's not to say that I would happily take a fall on older equipment, just that the main element of danger is generally not the equipment but the surrounding environment.
  - QuotedForTruth 7y ago
    Really? You'd be comfortable whipping in a swiss seat tied to a hemp rope (not dynamic) and stopped by a body belay? I don't think so. A clean fall onto a static rope can kill you from the sudden stop alone. There is a reason the mantra used to be "the leader must not fall" and its not because those guys were just scared. Sure 30 to 40 years ago (1980-1990) the equipment was good, and thats about when the explosion in free climbing ability really got going. The first 5.13 (Alex's Free Solo route Freerider has a 13a pitch) was done in 77 and the first 5.14 in 85. [1] Not coincidentally, the modern cam came into use in the late 70s. [2] Good climbing shoes came in the 80s too. Sport climbing, the use of bolts (technology) to safely climb faces that weren't previously protectable also started in the early 80s. So of course you wouldn't mind climbing on 30-40 year old climbing technology. Normal gear has been pretty stable since then and the limits of the sport have continued to grow, but that doesnt mean its not because of technology. The boom we are in now has been due to another bit of technology, the indoor climbing gym. They started in earnest in the 90s and have allowed a new level of training. [1] https://web.stanford.edu/~clint/yos/hard.htm https://web.stanford.edu/~clint/yos/hard.htm [2] https://www.climbing.com/news/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-camming-devices/ https://www.climbing.com/news/10-things-you-didnt-know-about...
    - mtnGoat 7y ago
      what type of whippers are you taking? if you are setting your protection closely enough and your belayer is not leaving lots of slack, you shouldn't be falling far enough on a static rope to kill you.
moredhel 7y ago
I watched and really enjoyed this movie. Essentially for both of these reasons. 1. The psychology of fear and how we can learn to overcome fear. I think there is a lot to say about the tantalising experience of facing death. 2. The evolutionary nature of a discipline. Some disciplines improve with technology, others with knowledge. I really love technical sports and am inspired by the amount of sharing in the communities. It is also easy to see in the newer sports how much progress has been made. It's exciting seeing how far we can push ourselves through what we previously thought was difficult/impossible and redefine the frontiers of the sport
amsha 7y ago
> I think that in studying economic growth, we (and especially we in the Silicon Valley) focus way too much on gadgets, and too little on the simple fact of human knowledge of how to do things. This is a major component of software's power – it's a tool for formalizing knowledge and skills permanently and distributing it rapidly at ~0 marginal cost. If a piece of software is both correct and performant, it can last a very, very long time, possibly outliving its creators. And the best software composes, so one program can build on top of another to build up a massive skillset.
skohan 7y ago
> Alex is wearing modern climbing boots As a climber this hurt me a bit to read. They're not boots, they're shoes John! Also I'm glad that the movie is successful, and that the sport of climbing is getting mainstream attention, but personally I'm more impressed by the accomplishment of Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgeson in free-climbing the dawn wall with protection. In my mind that is a better representation of the highest level of achievement within the sport. Climbing without protection has more to do with being a daredevil than a climber, and while I understand why it's so impressive, I am conflicted about this particular achievement being celebrated and potentially emulated. Pedantry aside, the article makes some interesting points.
- tomxor 7y ago
  > Climbing without protection has more to do with being a daredevil than a climber. I think it's important to recognise that there are many different ways to get up a piece of rock, these are a choice in "style", and each style has different challenges, different qualities etc. No one style is better than another, they are a personal choice, and this is part of what makes the sport so great... if you want to invent a new style, you can, it can be completely made up and personalized and obscure, perhaps it is even a one time thing, climb route x in slippers on christmas. People only argue about the validity of the most common styles, but they often forget they are only a style.
  - skohan 7y ago
    I understand what you're saying, and I'm all for people finding what they enjoy and defining the sport on their own terms. What gets me about free solo climbing is the sheer level of risk involved. Even for the best in the world, there are too many variables which simply can't be controlled in a climb like that, which is evidenced by the high rate of death for free-solo climbers. I fully support anyone's right to decide to take on that risk if they are fully informed of it. Personally it would not sit well with my morals to risk my life in such a way over a completely optional, self-serving activity given the emotional and material cost my death would bring to the people who care about me. Moreover, I have qualms about such pure risk being an avenue for fame and fortune.
zopa 7y ago
There's much more technology involved than Cochrane acknowledges. Alex didn't on-sight that climb: he practiced, over and over again, using ropes and gear that have existed in their current form for 60 years at best. The same goes for how he got so good: he climbed with ropes and gear (well, sometimes), and learned from people who used gear nearly all the time. Much of that technology looks old, but isn't: ropes have been around a while, but modern climbing ropes stretch so as to drastically lower the peak forces on your protection. For example. Modern climbing exists in large part because we developed technology that lets you try to climb hard high stuff without dying. Now, you could also get good just by bouldering, staying close to the ground. But that's not how actual existing climbing developed: bouldering grew out of crag climbing, which grew out of mountaineering. It's a little silly to wonder why people weren't very good at a game we just invented, before we invented it. Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century British mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan climbers in 1350?
- tomxor 7y ago
  > Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century British mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan climbers in 1350? Even through the early 19th century climbers were much better than given credit for, part of this is also how grading shifts over time. I've experienced this first hand, climbed some old "HVS" routes (fairly easy grade) established in early 19th century in wales (UK), only to find them in the low extremes by modern standards, maybe E2/3 (no this wasn't mere sandbaging), on top of which they were using heavy gear, unsafe gear and mountain boots! I have much respect for forgotten pioneers of climbing, they were much tougher than they appeared on the face of their accomplishments. We all have little jokes in climbing when conditions make routes harder like rain, cold, dirt, birds whatever, "oh this bird shit turns it into a VS / E12 today".. it's silly, but when applied generally, it's true - every aspect that is different can make the same climb significantly harder or easier for others, those pioneers probably were climbing E9 for them.
  - 7y ago
gameswithgo 7y ago
Fun bit of trivia on this topic: Alex was the first person to climb El Cap with no protection. The first person to climb The Nose route without using the gear for aid, was a woman, Lynn Hill. So El Cap went from a weeks long project using anything they had for aid, to climbed with rope used only for protection by a woman, in a day, and now to Alex climbing El Cap (via an easier route than Hill) with no protection at all.
- justinator 7y ago
  So El Cap went from a weeks long project using anything they had for aid Alex has also climbed that same route, in a comparable style, in under two hours.
  - Fricken 7y ago
    Anything goes for speed ascents of The Nose, so long as you do it fast. There are aid sections, it's not entirely free. Alex Honnold has not freed the nose with or without a rope. His nose speed record partner, Tommy Caldwell, is one of only a handful of people who have. Lynn Hill's first free ascent of The Nose was a monumental achievement, for a woman or a man. It's confusing because The Nose describes both the feature on El Cap, and the route that takes the plum line up that feature. Honnold's Free Solo of the Nose was on a route called Freerider.
    - justinator 7y ago
      Alex Honnold has not freed the nose with or without a rope That's why I said, "in a comparable style". The FA was done on aid, as was Alex's speed ascent with Tommy. But not completely comparable. The FA had to establish anchors, drill in bolts, figure out the route. More standing on the shoulders of giants, than anything I think. Then, it's just optimization. Honnold's Free Solo of the Nose was on a route called Freerider. I think the confusion may be your own? The Nose is well, The Nose. Honnold climbed a route off to the side on a feature called (initially) the Salathe Wall.
      - 7y ago
trollied 7y ago
If you have seen and enjoyed Free Solo, I can also recommend the Reel Rock series & Meru. If you haven't seen Free Solo (because you're not interested in climbing, or whatever) it's still worth a watch. https://www.redbull.com/int-en/tv/show/AP-1MD65N6X92111/reel-rock https://www.redbull.com/int-en/tv/show/AP-1MD65N6X92111/reel... https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2545428/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2545428/
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
JacobDotVI 7y ago
The author's point about dissemination of information is spot-on. A couple of years ago, I read Medieval Technology and Social Change, by Lynn White (https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Technology-Social-Change-White/dp/0195002660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485437692&sr=8-1&keywords=Medieval+Technology+and+Social+Change%2C+by+Lynn+White https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Technology-Social-Change-Whi...) as recommended by PG. Technically a textbook, it was a dry and drab look at the history of various innovations during Midlevel times - the stirrup, the windmill, etc. The 30,000ft view is that when innovations are introduced it takes a long time both for them to spread and for someone to finally exploit them to their greatest contributive state. While the steam engine was not invented until 1712, all of the components had been available since Roman times. It took quite a long time to find one of the greatest uses of those innovations. At least, it used to take a long time - Now, information and innovation spread much faster. Society moves much faster. The innovation of the stirrup took a thousands years to propagate. The innovation of the internet took less than 50 years; Smartphones took 5. The pace of global change is increasing exponentially. A modern entrepreneur must have line of sight to the latest innovations in order to anticipate their impact on his or her society, industry, business, and personal well being. No one wanted to be the new Nokia, Borders Books, or Woolworths. But, let's take a step back from specific innovations, and look at global mega-shifts in society. From the agricultural revolution, to the various metal ages, through the industrial revolution we are now being lapped by the waves of the Information Age. As humans we quickly absorb each individual change brought forth in the information age - email, cellular connections, the world wide web, the smart phone, etc. Can you imagine running your business without your iPhone? We very quickly adapt to the here and now and forget the way it was (Thank you evolution!). However, what we are not good at perceiving is the systematic, second-order changes that the Information Age will bring. The Agricultural Age brought these changes over thousands of years. The Industrial Age brought them over generations. The Information Age will bring them with alarming speed that we may not be prepared for: * Retailer's monopoly on local distribution was destroyed by Amazon.com + UPS * Newspapers have been shattered by the internet's ability to breakdown their stranglehold on the distribution of information. * The telecom world was turned upside down by the introduction of the cell phones, the internet, and the disruption of their monopoly on land-lines (Note that AT&T is a mere brand name, which was purchased on the cheap by SBC). * The traditional media world felt this shock earlier this year when a man with a twitter account was able to upend their distribution monopoly on the news and they were left reacting and pandering instead of dictating. But these are a number of examples in the commercial world. What about society itself? What about the global financial systems? What about governments? Note: this was part of a letter I sent out with a Christmas gift a few years ago. Full letter here: https://blog.jacob.vi/the-sovereign-individual/ https://blog.jacob.vi/the-sovereign-individual/
justinator 7y ago
Hmm, weird article - I wish the author knew more about climbing, as they are getting it a bit wrong. Alex couldn't have been birthed 100 years ago and climbed El Cap. The route he used still needed to be established by others. Alex climbed that already-established routes dozens of times before committing to not use all the tech the author thinks he doesn't need. The rehearsal was key. If there's a takeaway from him, it's: "practice". The route also had to be modified to allow anyone to climb it free - I'm talking about modifying the rock itself. 100 years ago, the climb would have been different. Not hugely so, but one key handhold present that was there before could have made all the difference. The happened in the first free ascent of the Nose too - an entire pitch was chipped in an attempt to free it, by a different person. They failed, but the route, once chipped, cannot be healed.
temporalparts 7y ago
This analysis is great, but I think there's a highly underrated economic point to be made; technology has unlocked crucial business innovations for climbing. 50 years ago, if you are into climbing, others might hear about it in a specialized tv show or magazine. You also needed to be very rich to be able to afford the time and equipment costs of climbing. Now with social media driven by the internet, the sponsorship model has enabled people with a passion to be able to sustain a living pursuing that hobby. Independent of the knowledge transfer, deeper knowledge is being created from more people being able to devote their lives to the hobby. Here's an article about FreeSolo's earnings from sponsorship: https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-us/magazine/money-diary-alex-honnold https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-us/magazine/money-diary-alex...
crimsonalucard 7y ago
John Cochrane is not the first person to think of the economy as the transfer, flow and storage of knowledge. See this book: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Information-Grows-Evolution-Economies/dp/0465096840/ref=sr_1_2?crid=1LS770SW1DIRV&keywords=how+information+grows&qid=1558025956&s=gateway&sprefix=How+inform%2Caps%2C191&sr=8-2 https://www.amazon.com/Why-Information-Grows-Evolution-Econo... The author of this book not only thinks about the economy in terms of knowledge but he relates it to information theory and entropy.
burritofanatic 7y ago
This is a very interesting look at climbing as it relates to knowledge transmission. Prior to YouTube, learning proper form really required you to probably take lessons and live/breath/be super friendly with some really good climbers as a necessity. Now, you can watch a number of good climbers online on having proper technique to get 70% there. For example this video demonstrates how climbing crimps (a specific type of hold) requires more than just finger strength: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws06PjI4FTU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws06PjI4FTU Stuff like this was nearly impossible to convey by book. If you want to learn how to be a better swimmer for example because you didn't take up swimming until you were in your 20s, it was very difficult. I did this as an adult, and each private lesson with an instructor to improve my form was $100 in recession dollars. Now, you can gather so much online and iron out the wrinkles with live instruction. Disclaimer: the video linked above is my friend's YouTube channel.
- rurp 7y ago
  I might be biased since I learned to climb before YouTube, but I find it quite difficult to learn or teach others through coaching or watching. Although I don't think that holds for the basics, if someone doesn't know what a drop knee is then a video of one would be helpful. But past that, so much depends on subtle weight shifts and tailoring moves to ones specific body; it's hard to learn that stuff outside of just trying hard moves yourself and making small adjustments.
mbostleman 7y ago
There's a couple the things the author missed - not that it changes the conclusion that much, but adds more context. The first is how the rise in indoor rock gyms in turn gave rise to youth leagues and competition. This has created a huge leap forward in the skills of elite climbers because many today (the "gym rat" generation) have been climbing only slightly less longer than they've been walking. The second is how the funding of outdoor adventure/exploration has evolved through the last couple of centuries, from securing precious resources (though mountaineering never had much of that), to a sort of angel/philanthropic model (geographic societies and alpine clubs), to government backed nationalism, to the current gear branding and sponsorship that is fueled by social media. This current model drives a huge amount of activity in outdoor endeavors that have helped create the crowd sourced effect he's talking about.
cookingoils 7y ago
I would have named this article, “Free Solo Market Cap”. Also disappointing read. What about comparing climbers to day traders or investors that take economic risks that often have very real consequences in other people’s lives.

101 points by portobello 7y ago

Regarding economic growth and growth theories, I found Dr. Paul Romer's (2018 Economics winner) Nobel Prize Lecture on his work, economic growth theories, and hope for the future to be excellent and stimulating. > Paul M. Romer: Lecture in Economic Sciences 2018 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZmgZGIZtiM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZmgZGIZtiM > Nobel Page: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/romer/lecture/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/rom...

lpcam33 7y ago
In the video the economist talks about progress just as if progress is the end in itself, but is not. We need to have a goal in order to progress to that goal. To have infinite progress is the same to say that at least one of this things: We don’t know where we want to go; We are infinitely greed; We are infinitely incompetent; We can use the example of the rope. There was many technological progress in the last decades to manufacture good gear for climbing, but as time goes by we will need to spend much more resources in research to get less and less improvements on the rope. There will be a time were the climber needs are fulfilled and we could just spare the nature (ex: the mountains that they like to climb) and enjoy what we have accomplished.

tomxor 7y ago

Not to detract too much from the author's point... But as a climber myself, I think climbing technology does actually contribute to advances in pure climbing skill more than you might think. Take just a single aspect of the gear - climbing rope, modern rope is a technological wonder, light, super strong and extremely dynamic, it's part of what makes it possible to push yourself to the limit and repeatedly fall off routes safely, with zero injury. After a certain point you cannot improve in climbing without pushing beyond your limits and failing, modern technology allows you to push further and further and survive and retain your skills, and this is a significant part of why the pure climbing skill of climbers today is so advanced. The author has made the same observation but ignoring climbing technology and focusing on internet etc for spread of knowledge - but there are many skills that do not survive conceptualization and communication in tact, for those, you need specialist technology to advance your learning beyond the basics. Go back 80 years, you will find weak, heavy hemp rope, rope harnesses that will probably kill you, and people literally carried rocks as gear, shoving them in cracks with the rope behind them. It's not hard to see how limiting this is in learning the skill, as you move forward in time gear becomes more advanced but still very heavy.

moredhel 7y ago
I agree that more modern climbing gear is fantastic and definitely gives me a great deal of confidence when I am pushing my limits, I don't think that it would stop me from pushing at all. Even using gear from 30-40 years ago, it is possible to climb with relative safety, the new gear is mainly only an incremental improvement in safety. That's not to say that I would happily take a fall on older equipment, just that the main element of danger is generally not the equipment but the surrounding environment.
- QuotedForTruth 7y ago
  Really? You'd be comfortable whipping in a swiss seat tied to a hemp rope (not dynamic) and stopped by a body belay? I don't think so. A clean fall onto a static rope can kill you from the sudden stop alone. There is a reason the mantra used to be "the leader must not fall" and its not because those guys were just scared. Sure 30 to 40 years ago (1980-1990) the equipment was good, and thats about when the explosion in free climbing ability really got going. The first 5.13 (Alex's Free Solo route Freerider has a 13a pitch) was done in 77 and the first 5.14 in 85. [1] Not coincidentally, the modern cam came into use in the late 70s. [2] Good climbing shoes came in the 80s too. Sport climbing, the use of bolts (technology) to safely climb faces that weren't previously protectable also started in the early 80s. So of course you wouldn't mind climbing on 30-40 year old climbing technology. Normal gear has been pretty stable since then and the limits of the sport have continued to grow, but that doesnt mean its not because of technology. The boom we are in now has been due to another bit of technology, the indoor climbing gym. They started in earnest in the 90s and have allowed a new level of training. [1] https://web.stanford.edu/~clint/yos/hard.htm https://web.stanford.edu/~clint/yos/hard.htm [2] https://www.climbing.com/news/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-camming-devices/ https://www.climbing.com/news/10-things-you-didnt-know-about...
  - mtnGoat 7y ago
    what type of whippers are you taking? if you are setting your protection closely enough and your belayer is not leaving lots of slack, you shouldn't be falling far enough on a static rope to kill you.

moredhel 7y ago

I watched and really enjoyed this movie. Essentially for both of these reasons. 1. The psychology of fear and how we can learn to overcome fear. I think there is a lot to say about the tantalising experience of facing death. 2. The evolutionary nature of a discipline. Some disciplines improve with technology, others with knowledge. I really love technical sports and am inspired by the amount of sharing in the communities. It is also easy to see in the newer sports how much progress has been made. It's exciting seeing how far we can push ourselves through what we previously thought was difficult/impossible and redefine the frontiers of the sport

amsha 7y ago

> I think that in studying economic growth, we (and especially we in the Silicon Valley) focus way too much on gadgets, and too little on the simple fact of human knowledge of how to do things. This is a major component of software's power – it's a tool for formalizing knowledge and skills permanently and distributing it rapidly at ~0 marginal cost. If a piece of software is both correct and performant, it can last a very, very long time, possibly outliving its creators. And the best software composes, so one program can build on top of another to build up a massive skillset.

skohan 7y ago

> Alex is wearing modern climbing boots As a climber this hurt me a bit to read. They're not boots, they're shoes John! Also I'm glad that the movie is successful, and that the sport of climbing is getting mainstream attention, but personally I'm more impressed by the accomplishment of Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgeson in free-climbing the dawn wall with protection. In my mind that is a better representation of the highest level of achievement within the sport. Climbing without protection has more to do with being a daredevil than a climber, and while I understand why it's so impressive, I am conflicted about this particular achievement being celebrated and potentially emulated. Pedantry aside, the article makes some interesting points.

tomxor 7y ago
> Climbing without protection has more to do with being a daredevil than a climber. I think it's important to recognise that there are many different ways to get up a piece of rock, these are a choice in "style", and each style has different challenges, different qualities etc. No one style is better than another, they are a personal choice, and this is part of what makes the sport so great... if you want to invent a new style, you can, it can be completely made up and personalized and obscure, perhaps it is even a one time thing, climb route x in slippers on christmas. People only argue about the validity of the most common styles, but they often forget they are only a style.
- skohan 7y ago
  I understand what you're saying, and I'm all for people finding what they enjoy and defining the sport on their own terms. What gets me about free solo climbing is the sheer level of risk involved. Even for the best in the world, there are too many variables which simply can't be controlled in a climb like that, which is evidenced by the high rate of death for free-solo climbers. I fully support anyone's right to decide to take on that risk if they are fully informed of it. Personally it would not sit well with my morals to risk my life in such a way over a completely optional, self-serving activity given the emotional and material cost my death would bring to the people who care about me. Moreover, I have qualms about such pure risk being an avenue for fame and fortune.

zopa 7y ago

There's much more technology involved than Cochrane acknowledges. Alex didn't on-sight that climb: he practiced, over and over again, using ropes and gear that have existed in their current form for 60 years at best. The same goes for how he got so good: he climbed with ropes and gear (well, sometimes), and learned from people who used gear nearly all the time. Much of that technology looks old, but isn't: ropes have been around a while, but modern climbing ropes stretch so as to drastically lower the peak forces on your protection. For example. Modern climbing exists in large part because we developed technology that lets you try to climb hard high stuff without dying. Now, you could also get good just by bouldering, staying close to the ground. But that's not how actual existing climbing developed: bouldering grew out of crag climbing, which grew out of mountaineering. It's a little silly to wonder why people weren't very good at a game we just invented, before we invented it. Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century British mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan climbers in 1350?

tomxor 7y ago
> Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century British mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan climbers in 1350? Even through the early 19th century climbers were much better than given credit for, part of this is also how grading shifts over time. I've experienced this first hand, climbed some old "HVS" routes (fairly easy grade) established in early 19th century in wales (UK), only to find them in the low extremes by modern standards, maybe E2/3 (no this wasn't mere sandbaging), on top of which they were using heavy gear, unsafe gear and mountain boots! I have much respect for forgotten pioneers of climbing, they were much tougher than they appeared on the face of their accomplishments. We all have little jokes in climbing when conditions make routes harder like rain, cold, dirt, birds whatever, "oh this bird shit turns it into a VS / E12 today".. it's silly, but when applied generally, it's true - every aspect that is different can make the same climb significantly harder or easier for others, those pioneers probably were climbing E9 for them.
- 7y ago

gameswithgo 7y ago

Fun bit of trivia on this topic: Alex was the first person to climb El Cap with no protection. The first person to climb The Nose route without using the gear for aid, was a woman, Lynn Hill. So El Cap went from a weeks long project using anything they had for aid, to climbed with rope used only for protection by a woman, in a day, and now to Alex climbing El Cap (via an easier route than Hill) with no protection at all.

justinator 7y ago
So El Cap went from a weeks long project using anything they had for aid Alex has also climbed that same route, in a comparable style, in under two hours.
- Fricken 7y ago
  Anything goes for speed ascents of The Nose, so long as you do it fast. There are aid sections, it's not entirely free. Alex Honnold has not freed the nose with or without a rope. His nose speed record partner, Tommy Caldwell, is one of only a handful of people who have. Lynn Hill's first free ascent of The Nose was a monumental achievement, for a woman or a man. It's confusing because The Nose describes both the feature on El Cap, and the route that takes the plum line up that feature. Honnold's Free Solo of the Nose was on a route called Freerider.
  - justinator 7y ago
    Alex Honnold has not freed the nose with or without a rope That's why I said, "in a comparable style". The FA was done on aid, as was Alex's speed ascent with Tommy. But not completely comparable. The FA had to establish anchors, drill in bolts, figure out the route. More standing on the shoulders of giants, than anything I think. Then, it's just optimization. Honnold's Free Solo of the Nose was on a route called Freerider. I think the confusion may be your own? The Nose is well, The Nose. Honnold climbed a route off to the side on a feature called (initially) the Salathe Wall.
    - 7y ago

trollied 7y ago

If you have seen and enjoyed Free Solo, I can also recommend the Reel Rock series & Meru. If you haven't seen Free Solo (because you're not interested in climbing, or whatever) it's still worth a watch. https://www.redbull.com/int-en/tv/show/AP-1MD65N6X92111/reel-rock https://www.redbull.com/int-en/tv/show/AP-1MD65N6X92111/reel... https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2545428/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2545428/

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

JacobDotVI 7y ago

The author's point about dissemination of information is spot-on. A couple of years ago, I read Medieval Technology and Social Change, by Lynn White (https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Technology-Social-Change-White/dp/0195002660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485437692&sr=8-1&keywords=Medieval+Technology+and+Social+Change%2C+by+Lynn+White https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Technology-Social-Change-Whi...) as recommended by PG. Technically a textbook, it was a dry and drab look at the history of various innovations during Midlevel times - the stirrup, the windmill, etc. The 30,000ft view is that when innovations are introduced it takes a long time both for them to spread and for someone to finally exploit them to their greatest contributive state. While the steam engine was not invented until 1712, all of the components had been available since Roman times. It took quite a long time to find one of the greatest uses of those innovations. At least, it used to take a long time - Now, information and innovation spread much faster. Society moves much faster. The innovation of the stirrup took a thousands years to propagate. The innovation of the internet took less than 50 years; Smartphones took 5. The pace of global change is increasing exponentially. A modern entrepreneur must have line of sight to the latest innovations in order to anticipate their impact on his or her society, industry, business, and personal well being. No one wanted to be the new Nokia, Borders Books, or Woolworths. But, let's take a step back from specific innovations, and look at global mega-shifts in society. From the agricultural revolution, to the various metal ages, through the industrial revolution we are now being lapped by the waves of the Information Age. As humans we quickly absorb each individual change brought forth in the information age - email, cellular connections, the world wide web, the smart phone, etc. Can you imagine running your business without your iPhone? We very quickly adapt to the here and now and forget the way it was (Thank you evolution!). However, what we are not good at perceiving is the systematic, second-order changes that the Information Age will bring. The Agricultural Age brought these changes over thousands of years. The Industrial Age brought them over generations. The Information Age will bring them with alarming speed that we may not be prepared for: * Retailer's monopoly on local distribution was destroyed by Amazon.com + UPS * Newspapers have been shattered by the internet's ability to breakdown their stranglehold on the distribution of information. * The telecom world was turned upside down by the introduction of the cell phones, the internet, and the disruption of their monopoly on land-lines (Note that AT&T is a mere brand name, which was purchased on the cheap by SBC). * The traditional media world felt this shock earlier this year when a man with a twitter account was able to upend their distribution monopoly on the news and they were left reacting and pandering instead of dictating. But these are a number of examples in the commercial world. What about society itself? What about the global financial systems? What about governments? Note: this was part of a letter I sent out with a Christmas gift a few years ago. Full letter here: https://blog.jacob.vi/the-sovereign-individual/ https://blog.jacob.vi/the-sovereign-individual/

justinator 7y ago

Hmm, weird article - I wish the author knew more about climbing, as they are getting it a bit wrong. Alex couldn't have been birthed 100 years ago and climbed El Cap. The route he used still needed to be established by others. Alex climbed that already-established routes dozens of times before committing to not use all the tech the author thinks he doesn't need. The rehearsal was key. If there's a takeaway from him, it's: "practice". The route also had to be modified to allow anyone to climb it free - I'm talking about modifying the rock itself. 100 years ago, the climb would have been different. Not hugely so, but one key handhold present that was there before could have made all the difference. The happened in the first free ascent of the Nose too - an entire pitch was chipped in an attempt to free it, by a different person. They failed, but the route, once chipped, cannot be healed.

temporalparts 7y ago

This analysis is great, but I think there's a highly underrated economic point to be made; technology has unlocked crucial business innovations for climbing. 50 years ago, if you are into climbing, others might hear about it in a specialized tv show or magazine. You also needed to be very rich to be able to afford the time and equipment costs of climbing. Now with social media driven by the internet, the sponsorship model has enabled people with a passion to be able to sustain a living pursuing that hobby. Independent of the knowledge transfer, deeper knowledge is being created from more people being able to devote their lives to the hobby. Here's an article about FreeSolo's earnings from sponsorship: https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-us/magazine/money-diary-alex-honnold https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-us/magazine/money-diary-alex...

crimsonalucard 7y ago

John Cochrane is not the first person to think of the economy as the transfer, flow and storage of knowledge. See this book: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Information-Grows-Evolution-Economies/dp/0465096840/ref=sr_1_2?crid=1LS770SW1DIRV&keywords=how+information+grows&qid=1558025956&s=gateway&sprefix=How+inform%2Caps%2C191&sr=8-2 https://www.amazon.com/Why-Information-Grows-Evolution-Econo... The author of this book not only thinks about the economy in terms of knowledge but he relates it to information theory and entropy.

burritofanatic 7y ago

This is a very interesting look at climbing as it relates to knowledge transmission. Prior to YouTube, learning proper form really required you to probably take lessons and live/breath/be super friendly with some really good climbers as a necessity. Now, you can watch a number of good climbers online on having proper technique to get 70% there. For example this video demonstrates how climbing crimps (a specific type of hold) requires more than just finger strength: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws06PjI4FTU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws06PjI4FTU Stuff like this was nearly impossible to convey by book. If you want to learn how to be a better swimmer for example because you didn't take up swimming until you were in your 20s, it was very difficult. I did this as an adult, and each private lesson with an instructor to improve my form was $100 in recession dollars. Now, you can gather so much online and iron out the wrinkles with live instruction. Disclaimer: the video linked above is my friend's YouTube channel.

rurp 7y ago
I might be biased since I learned to climb before YouTube, but I find it quite difficult to learn or teach others through coaching or watching. Although I don't think that holds for the basics, if someone doesn't know what a drop knee is then a video of one would be helpful. But past that, so much depends on subtle weight shifts and tailoring moves to ones specific body; it's hard to learn that stuff outside of just trying hard moves yourself and making small adjustments.

mbostleman 7y ago

There's a couple the things the author missed - not that it changes the conclusion that much, but adds more context. The first is how the rise in indoor rock gyms in turn gave rise to youth leagues and competition. This has created a huge leap forward in the skills of elite climbers because many today (the "gym rat" generation) have been climbing only slightly less longer than they've been walking. The second is how the funding of outdoor adventure/exploration has evolved through the last couple of centuries, from securing precious resources (though mountaineering never had much of that), to a sort of angel/philanthropic model (geographic societies and alpine clubs), to government backed nationalism, to the current gear branding and sponsorship that is fueled by social media. This current model drives a huge amount of activity in outdoor endeavors that have helped create the crowd sourced effect he's talking about.

cookingoils 7y ago

I would have named this article, “Free Solo Market Cap”. Also disappointing read. What about comparing climbers to day traders or investors that take economic risks that often have very real consequences in other people’s lives.