6 ms·

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 cou

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.
      - tasuki 6y ago
        > someone had to find his decomposing body Well, yes - is this an argument against dying in general? Fully agreed - it sucks! > someone had to remove it Yes, that's what people do with dead bodies! > someone had to clean the public shelter he died in The abandoned bus? Well no one had to clean it, but I suppose someone cleaned it? Yes, cleaning up after dead people is a nuisance. So preferably he shouldn't have died, ever? To spare the people finding his body, removing it, and cleaning up?
        EdwardDiego 6y ago
        The abandoned bus that had been converted into _shelter_ for other back-country users. Shelter is vital, so not sure why you're minimising it. > Yes, that's what people do with dead bodies! Entire point is, his death was easily avoidable. He chose not to avoid it, thus impacting other people needlessly.
- jariel 6y ago
  "This is just internet forum backseat driving." He didn't even have a map. He was either incredibly wreckless and/or dumb. "Man walks into the wilderness without a map, plan, or any preparation and eventually dies" <-- this just isn't a story worth telling.
  - prawn 6y ago
    Yeah, and I bet it won't get made into a movie either. Or have people still discussing it years later. Not worth telling at all. I think people judge his effort by their own interpretation of success. It could just be that some people "get" him and some don't.
    - jariel 6y ago
      No, there is nothing to 'get'. He was an fool. Filmmakers dramatize and re-interpret events all the time. There is no 'real-life story' other than a moron who went into the deep wilderness without even a map. And were he to have taken even basic precautions, would be alive and well.
      - prawn 6y ago
        Proving my point. You said it wasn't a story worth telling. History says it was told by published article, book, and then a movie. And it's obviously of note enough that people from around the world make a pilgrimage there, that they've removed the bus, that the bus removal is international news and that people will still visit the site where the bus was! It obviously resonates with some people and not with others. Some get it, they understand the motivation, it means something to them. It's OK to not be one of those people.
        jariel 6y ago
        It 'proves' that narratives can be created out of anything. It 'proves' that an idiot, thinking he was taking 'basic precautions', but really was taking none at all, walked blindly to his own death, can be twisted by authors and narrative makes into some kind of 'insightful' story. It 'proves' that populism is for fools who can't take the time to just see what is in front of them. "A man decided to fly an airplane without any training or knowledge whatsoever and died on takeoff - here is the story of his enlightening journey"
sinker 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. Sorry but this just isn't true. There's too many variables to account for, the season, terrain, availability of large game, availability and proximity of water. Even in the best circumstances, outdoor survival isn't easy. There is one particular show (forgot the name) where contestants are put into an area on their own and tasked to survive as long as possible. The areas are specifically chosen for their viability. Even then very few people, even those with experience, make it past 90 days. Successful survival is a conglomeration of many skills, hunting, navigation, sheltering, foraging, cooking, weather adaptation, emotional regulation, food preparation and preservation, shooting, injury prevention and care, etc. Of course preparation is an important factor, but your statement suggesting that just about anyone can do it given some basic research is a huge stretch.

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.
    - tasuki 6y ago
      > someone had to find his decomposing body Well, yes - is this an argument against dying in general? Fully agreed - it sucks! > someone had to remove it Yes, that's what people do with dead bodies! > someone had to clean the public shelter he died in The abandoned bus? Well no one had to clean it, but I suppose someone cleaned it? Yes, cleaning up after dead people is a nuisance. So preferably he shouldn't have died, ever? To spare the people finding his body, removing it, and cleaning up?
      - EdwardDiego 6y ago
        The abandoned bus that had been converted into _shelter_ for other back-country users. Shelter is vital, so not sure why you're minimising it. > Yes, that's what people do with dead bodies! Entire point is, his death was easily avoidable. He chose not to avoid it, thus impacting other people needlessly.
jariel 6y ago
"This is just internet forum backseat driving." He didn't even have a map. He was either incredibly wreckless and/or dumb. "Man walks into the wilderness without a map, plan, or any preparation and eventually dies" <-- this just isn't a story worth telling.
- prawn 6y ago
  Yeah, and I bet it won't get made into a movie either. Or have people still discussing it years later. Not worth telling at all. I think people judge his effort by their own interpretation of success. It could just be that some people "get" him and some don't.
  - jariel 6y ago
    No, there is nothing to 'get'. He was an fool. Filmmakers dramatize and re-interpret events all the time. There is no 'real-life story' other than a moron who went into the deep wilderness without even a map. And were he to have taken even basic precautions, would be alive and well.
    - prawn 6y ago
      Proving my point. You said it wasn't a story worth telling. History says it was told by published article, book, and then a movie. And it's obviously of note enough that people from around the world make a pilgrimage there, that they've removed the bus, that the bus removal is international news and that people will still visit the site where the bus was! It obviously resonates with some people and not with others. Some get it, they understand the motivation, it means something to them. It's OK to not be one of those people.
      - jariel 6y ago
        It 'proves' that narratives can be created out of anything. It 'proves' that an idiot, thinking he was taking 'basic precautions', but really was taking none at all, walked blindly to his own death, can be twisted by authors and narrative makes into some kind of 'insightful' story. It 'proves' that populism is for fools who can't take the time to just see what is in front of them. "A man decided to fly an airplane without any training or knowledge whatsoever and died on takeoff - here is the story of his enlightening journey"

sinker 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. Sorry but this just isn't true. There's too many variables to account for, the season, terrain, availability of large game, availability and proximity of water. Even in the best circumstances, outdoor survival isn't easy. There is one particular show (forgot the name) where contestants are put into an area on their own and tasked to survive as long as possible. The areas are specifically chosen for their viability. Even then very few people, even those with experience, make it past 90 days. Successful survival is a conglomeration of many skills, hunting, navigation, sheltering, foraging, cooking, weather adaptation, emotional regulation, food preparation and preservation, shooting, injury prevention and care, etc. Of course preparation is an important factor, but your statement suggesting that just about anyone can do it given some basic research is a huge stretch.