7 ms·

He survived for 113 days in the wilderness, not too bad. He was unprepared, yes, but it also seems he knew that what he was doing was risky, and he seems to hav

by tasuki 6y ago

He survived for 113 days in the wilderness, not too bad. He was unprepared, yes, but it also seems he knew that what he was doing was risky, and he seems to have been ok taking that risk. I'm not quite sure - why judge him negatively?

BelleOfTheBall 6y ago
A lot of people judge him negatively because of what happened post his death: a non-fiction book about him, a feature film, hundreds of imitators, a cult of "hard survival". This lead to people dying, getting malnourished, government funds being spent on rescuing them. However, he never knew and never will know any of that happened. All he cared about is the journey, how is he possibly responsible for inspiring unprepared people to go into the woods? It's not like he's a still-living lifestyle blogger who goads people into doing this. He's not a hero but he's not deserving of all the flack he gets.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
xenihn 6y ago
I think I get it. Everyone knows his name, but no one knows the names of people who lived and died trying to rescue people like him.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  Well, don't leave us hanging after suggesting such moral failing with so much contempt. How many people actually die trying to rescue people like him?
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    Here's one from my local area - the climbers shouldn't have been up there, the incoming weather was predictable, they thought they could beat it, they didn't, and as a result, a rescuer was killed by an avalanche trying to save them - but they were all killed by avalanches also. https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/90751216/memorial-for-one-of-nzs-worst-alpine-tragedies-to-be-unveiled-in-arthurs-pass https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/90751216/memorial-for...
notatoad 6y ago
surviving 113 days in the wilderness isn't that great of a feat. if you were prepared, and had done a bare minimum of research and planning beforehand, you could manage not to die. it wasn't that what he did was risky, it's that what he did was unnecessarily risky. if he wasn't so stupid about it, it would have been a lot less risky. taking on a challenge is admirable, but taking it on without any respect for the difficulty of the thing you're attempting is dumb.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  This is just internet forum backseat driving. I'm sure the average hard-boiled HNer could've outlasted him with their innate wilderness intuitions -- probably have even watched a few survival videos on Youtube --, but Chris' story is also about a guy who wanted to march away from the trappings of society. I wouldn't be surprised if he died at day 113 even if he was 2x or 4x as prepared. He would have just went deeper quicker. But pearl clutching about the risks someone else decided to take is incredibly petty. And odds are, as a fellow HN jockey who posts every day like myself, you aren't taking nearly enough.
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    I hunt and tramp (hike) and there's inherent risk, and risk that can be removed or minimised, and the risks he took that killed him were unnecessary ones.
    - tasuki 6y ago
      Yes, he took "unnecessary" risks. I understand his goal was not to "minimize unnecessary risks". If that's your goal, fine. It's mine, too. It wasn't his goal.
      - EdwardDiego 6y ago
        Yes, but he didn't exist in a vacuum - someone had to find his decomposing body, someone had to remove it, someone had to clean the public shelter he died in. His chosen risks inflicted downsides on others.
moate 6y ago
Because he was a 24 year old putz who’s grand life philosophy was basically the same as every 24 year old suburban white dude: the world sucks, I should run away to a simpler time. This man is not a hero. That’s my problem with him. When <nameless random idiot> dies backpacking because they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing, they don’t become a weird folk hero. This guy should have been a nameless statistic. There is no wisdom here, only a warning. But still schmucks be going up and getting trapped/injured/dead in Alaska because “oh, there’s a bus up there where some hiking n00b died!” Just stop. Stay home. Hike your local 5 mile park. You’re not a survivalist. And if you are, you’re probably not fighting me on HN comments about how you’re the exception to my point. You’re out wearing a grisly bear pelt and riding a wolf or something.
- mrep 6y ago
  > Because he was a 24 year old putz who’s grand life philosophy was basically the same as every 24 year old suburban white dude: the world sucks, I should run away to a simpler time. As a white dude who grew up in suburbia and was recently 24, where are you getting this because I nor any of my suburban white friends think that?
  - rsecora 6y ago
    That's a common meme of the last 40.000 years. Olders love criticizing younger generations. Don't worry it happens in urban areas, in the jungle and at kings court. Human nature, my elders criticized my 30 years ago, and now I do the same. I'm quite sure Phillip II also complained about the foolines of his son Alexander, even when he was tutored by Aristotle. In brief, elders complains of youngers, but the truth is the world progress with each generation. Try to left a better world than the one you have encountered, it still has some nasty bugs to resolve.
    - catalogia 6y ago
      If old people have been criticizing young people for acting dumb for thousands of years, maybe that means old people are always wrong, or maybe it means young people always tend to act dumb. I think a lot of old people look back on their youth, realize they were dumb, then look at the contemporary youth and see that they're dumb too. Those youth eventually mature, see that they were once dumb, and see that contemporary youth are still dumb. This hypothesis doesn't preclude a general trend of progress; rather it says something about the biological development of human brains. Despite what our modern laws might say, 18 year olds typically still have a lot of growing up to do. There's plenty of evidence that suggests brain development continues well into one's mid 20s. > It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet. The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051 https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?Con... McCandless died when he was 24. Notice that a lot of people in this thread, sympathetic or critical of him, are referring to him as a 'kid'. There's probably some real truth in that characterization.
BeetleB 6y ago
> He survived for 113 days in the wilderness, not too bad. That's one way to frame it. The other way is simply to say that it took him 113 days to starve to death. Lest anyone have the wrong impressions from the book/movie, he didn't die because he ate poisonous berries that messed up his digestive system. He simply burned more calories than he consumed. I'm not one of those who think negatively of him. He himself wrote something to the effect of not having regrets and being grateful he went on this journey when he knew he was probably going to starve to death. Who am I to criticize him for it? He lived the way he wanted to, and when it was clear it was leading to his death, he was at peace with that.
- tasuki 6y ago
  > he didn't die because he ate poisonous berries that messed up his digestive system. He simply burned more calories than he consumed. How do you know?
  - catalogia 6y ago
    He kept a journal. The berries were probably the final straw, but he was already starving.
  - BeetleB 6y ago
    The "poisonous berries" theory came from one writer who did shoddy research. Those berries do not even exist in that region. Actually, reading up on it now, it seems there have been more developments since I last read it a decade ago. In any case, let's just say there are proponents of both theories. In my opinion, though, Occam's razor points to simple starvation.
    - catalogia 6y ago
      > Those berries do not even exist in that region The "poison berries" refer to potato seeds, no? McCandless wrote about eating them in his journal, they weren't fabricated by some writer. > Day 78: Missed wolf. Ate potato seeds and many berries coming. > Day 94: Woodpecker. Fog. Extremely weak. Fault of potato seed. Much trouble just to stand up. Starving. Great jeopardy.

by tasuki 6y ago

BelleOfTheBall 6y ago

A lot of people judge him negatively because of what happened post his death: a non-fiction book about him, a feature film, hundreds of imitators, a cult of "hard survival". This lead to people dying, getting malnourished, government funds being spent on rescuing them. However, he never knew and never will know any of that happened. All he cared about is the journey, how is he possibly responsible for inspiring unprepared people to go into the woods? It's not like he's a still-living lifestyle blogger who goads people into doing this. He's not a hero but he's not deserving of all the flack he gets.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

xenihn 6y ago

I think I get it. Everyone knows his name, but no one knows the names of people who lived and died trying to rescue people like him.

hombre_fatal 6y ago
Well, don't leave us hanging after suggesting such moral failing with so much contempt. How many people actually die trying to rescue people like him?
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  Here's one from my local area - the climbers shouldn't have been up there, the incoming weather was predictable, they thought they could beat it, they didn't, and as a result, a rescuer was killed by an avalanche trying to save them - but they were all killed by avalanches also. https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/90751216/memorial-for-one-of-nzs-worst-alpine-tragedies-to-be-unveiled-in-arthurs-pass https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/90751216/memorial-for...

notatoad 6y ago

surviving 113 days in the wilderness isn't that great of a feat. if you were prepared, and had done a bare minimum of research and planning beforehand, you could manage not to die. it wasn't that what he did was risky, it's that what he did was unnecessarily risky. if he wasn't so stupid about it, it would have been a lot less risky. taking on a challenge is admirable, but taking it on without any respect for the difficulty of the thing you're attempting is dumb.

hombre_fatal 6y ago
This is just internet forum backseat driving. I'm sure the average hard-boiled HNer could've outlasted him with their innate wilderness intuitions -- probably have even watched a few survival videos on Youtube --, but Chris' story is also about a guy who wanted to march away from the trappings of society. I wouldn't be surprised if he died at day 113 even if he was 2x or 4x as prepared. He would have just went deeper quicker. But pearl clutching about the risks someone else decided to take is incredibly petty. And odds are, as a fellow HN jockey who posts every day like myself, you aren't taking nearly enough.
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  I hunt and tramp (hike) and there's inherent risk, and risk that can be removed or minimised, and the risks he took that killed him were unnecessary ones.
  - tasuki 6y ago
    Yes, he took "unnecessary" risks. I understand his goal was not to "minimize unnecessary risks". If that's your goal, fine. It's mine, too. It wasn't his goal.
    - EdwardDiego 6y ago
      Yes, but he didn't exist in a vacuum - someone had to find his decomposing body, someone had to remove it, someone had to clean the public shelter he died in. His chosen risks inflicted downsides on others.

moate 6y ago

Because he was a 24 year old putz who’s grand life philosophy was basically the same as every 24 year old suburban white dude: the world sucks, I should run away to a simpler time. This man is not a hero. That’s my problem with him. When <nameless random idiot> dies backpacking because they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing, they don’t become a weird folk hero. This guy should have been a nameless statistic. There is no wisdom here, only a warning. But still schmucks be going up and getting trapped/injured/dead in Alaska because “oh, there’s a bus up there where some hiking n00b died!” Just stop. Stay home. Hike your local 5 mile park. You’re not a survivalist. And if you are, you’re probably not fighting me on HN comments about how you’re the exception to my point. You’re out wearing a grisly bear pelt and riding a wolf or something.

mrep 6y ago
> Because he was a 24 year old putz who’s grand life philosophy was basically the same as every 24 year old suburban white dude: the world sucks, I should run away to a simpler time. As a white dude who grew up in suburbia and was recently 24, where are you getting this because I nor any of my suburban white friends think that?
- rsecora 6y ago
  That's a common meme of the last 40.000 years. Olders love criticizing younger generations. Don't worry it happens in urban areas, in the jungle and at kings court. Human nature, my elders criticized my 30 years ago, and now I do the same. I'm quite sure Phillip II also complained about the foolines of his son Alexander, even when he was tutored by Aristotle. In brief, elders complains of youngers, but the truth is the world progress with each generation. Try to left a better world than the one you have encountered, it still has some nasty bugs to resolve.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    If old people have been criticizing young people for acting dumb for thousands of years, maybe that means old people are always wrong, or maybe it means young people always tend to act dumb. I think a lot of old people look back on their youth, realize they were dumb, then look at the contemporary youth and see that they're dumb too. Those youth eventually mature, see that they were once dumb, and see that contemporary youth are still dumb. This hypothesis doesn't preclude a general trend of progress; rather it says something about the biological development of human brains. Despite what our modern laws might say, 18 year olds typically still have a lot of growing up to do. There's plenty of evidence that suggests brain development continues well into one's mid 20s. > It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet. The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051 https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?Con... McCandless died when he was 24. Notice that a lot of people in this thread, sympathetic or critical of him, are referring to him as a 'kid'. There's probably some real truth in that characterization.

BeetleB 6y ago

> He survived for 113 days in the wilderness, not too bad. That's one way to frame it. The other way is simply to say that it took him 113 days to starve to death. Lest anyone have the wrong impressions from the book/movie, he didn't die because he ate poisonous berries that messed up his digestive system. He simply burned more calories than he consumed. I'm not one of those who think negatively of him. He himself wrote something to the effect of not having regrets and being grateful he went on this journey when he knew he was probably going to starve to death. Who am I to criticize him for it? He lived the way he wanted to, and when it was clear it was leading to his death, he was at peace with that.

tasuki 6y ago
> he didn't die because he ate poisonous berries that messed up his digestive system. He simply burned more calories than he consumed. How do you know?
- catalogia 6y ago
  He kept a journal. The berries were probably the final straw, but he was already starving.
- BeetleB 6y ago
  The "poisonous berries" theory came from one writer who did shoddy research. Those berries do not even exist in that region. Actually, reading up on it now, it seems there have been more developments since I last read it a decade ago. In any case, let's just say there are proponents of both theories. In my opinion, though, Occam's razor points to simple starvation.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    > Those berries do not even exist in that region The "poison berries" refer to potato seeds, no? McCandless wrote about eating them in his journal, they weren't fabricated by some writer. > Day 78: Missed wolf. Ate potato seeds and many berries coming. > Day 94: Woodpecker. Fog. Extremely weak. Fault of potato seed. Much trouble just to stand up. Starving. Great jeopardy.