5 ms·

Heading out into the wilderness for months at a time alone is an extreme event. So is flying in a wingsuit, or downhill skiing in a remote location full or rock

by sinker 6y ago

Heading out into the wilderness for months at a time alone is an extreme event. So is flying in a wingsuit, or downhill skiing in a remote location full or rocks, or free soloing a difficult mountain. One one hand, you can say, "Think of society, think of the people who would bear the responsibility of cleaning up after your death if you were to fail." On the other hand, there are always people who are going to pursue extreme ventures. But given how few people are willing to enter into life or death scenarios like I described, I don't find the the argument that these people have any noticeable effect on the economies of the state very convincing.

twblalock 6y ago
> I don't find the the argument that these people have any noticeable effect on the economies of the state very convincing. People can die trying to rescue others who are doing stupid stuff. That matters too.
- mindcrime 6y ago
  People can die trying to rescue others who are doing stupid stuff. That matters too. They can, and they do. One recent example from near where I live: https://www.firehouse.com/lodds/news/21137013/nc-rescue-squad-member-dies-in-fall-during-search https://www.firehouse.com/lodds/news/21137013/nc-rescue-squa...
  - cjbprime 6y ago
    Another: https://youtu.be/51njl0n_dvI https://youtu.be/51njl0n_dvI
bananabreakfast 6y ago
Yes indeed, embarking on extreme ventures are a fundamental part of humanity and an inevitability of the risk tolerance bell curve of personality matrices. I'm certainly in no way advocating for people to not participate in outdoor activities that could be considered risky. Rather, the most important key difference here is in the individual's preparation for these activities. Yes people wingsuit, but try going to any skydiving drop zone without having quite literally hundreds of jumps with dozens as formal training in a wing suit. They will first laugh at your stupidity then get extremely serious and curse you out of the building for being a dangerous fool. People who free solo mountains are not amateurs. They have thousands of hours of training and have climbed the exact same route safely so many times they know each hold my heart. McCandless was a reckless fool. Not only had he never been to where he went with someone who knew their way around before he went alone, but he had no training doing similar things in any other proper context and that staggering lack of knowledge cost him his life. If someone has never skydived, and they saunter up to a 2000ft cliff wearing a wingsuit and jump off thinking they are taking the same risk as the extensively trained professionals they've watched on youtube then that makes them a reckless fool as well.
- sinker 6y ago
  People put up the same comments about Alex Honnold when the Free Solo documentary made the front page of HN. That he was an irresponsible jerk who lived only for himself. Ultimately, the individual pays the greatest price. There is a difference where you if you want to set the land-speed record on a public highway in rush hour versus going out alone into the wilderness or climbing a mountain without a rope. The difference is where you draw the line. I believe that if any individual desires to stake out into the wilderness, alone, live in nature, hunt, and forage without a whisper to society at large - that is precisely the place where you would go. If not in wilderness, then where?
  - obmelvin 6y ago
    >People put up the same comments about Alex Honnold when the Free Solo documentary made the front page of HN. That he was an irresponsible jerk who lived only for himself. There is a big difference between these two cases. Honnold's level of preparation is hardly even comparable to McCandless lack of even basic knowledge of his surroundings.
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      Sure, but how do we quantify that? There's no state board that certifies you as a professional free solo climber. Say you're a park ranger at Yosemite. Lately, somebody has been parking a suspicious-looking van near the trailhead at El Capitan, so you're keeping an eye out for trouble. You see someone exit the van one morning carrying nothing but the clothes on his back, and you follow him down the trail to the cliff face. He grabs an outcropping and starts climbing like an escaped mental patient. You have the authority to stop him, since he's clearly behaving recklessly. What do you do? How does your decision differ from that of a ranger who sees Chris McCandless leave the trail in an unmarked area?
      - philistine 6y ago
        “Hey, stop there for a bit, lets have a chat so I can ascertain your skill level.” Not every problem is a nail and requires a hammer (stopping someone).
CamperBob2 6y ago
The free-soloing example is a good one, I think. Can anyone come up with a way to prohibit self-destructive people like Chris McCandless from thoughtlessly putting himself and others at risk, while also leaving room for an Alex Honnold to do his thing without state interference? My personal take is that no one is forced to be on a search/rescue team. Those guys and gals are invariably adrenaline junkies, just like the people they rescue, and they're equally passionate about adventure in the outdoors. The only real difference is that they have the professional qualifications needed to do their paid or volunteer work as safely as possible. And they need something to do, just like the rest of us.
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  ...There's not much adrenaline in searching for a lost hiker. It's laborious and methodical work. Now, alpine/cliff rescue, yep, that's a tad more exciting.
nefitty 6y ago
To me there’s a difference between a Chris McCandless and an Alex Honnold. If Honnold wasn’t so devoted to preparation it would be irresponsible to let him climb mountains without harnesses.
- sinker 6y ago
  Who is the party that "lets" him climb mountains?
  - nefitty 6y ago
    Good point. I picture our friends and family having some sliver of responsibility for our wellbeing, however slight that burden may be.
    - antepodius 6y ago
      Responsibility, but not direct power (hopefully). If he really wants to endanger his life like that, how could you stop him?
jcrawfordor 6y ago
The concern is not primarily economic. In many areas, search and rescue personnel are primarily unpaid volunteers and the cost involved could be quite small. The larger issue is that searchers regularly expose themselves to personal risk in order to recover missing people. While searchers are better prepared, they often operate in large numbers and the realities of the situation require them to handle conditions which they would normally consider too dangerous (rough terrain, poor weather, etc). This makes injuries, and occasional fatalities, inevitable. Even without any injuries they spend a great deal of their time and energy on an effort that may have been unnecessary had the missing person taken better precautions. There is some nuance here: the reality is that well-prepared people doing the best they can do become lost or injured and require rescue. This is not a "bad" thing but simply the result of activities that are not risk-free, and everything from government agency capabilities to volunteer SAR exist to mitigate this risk. But there is a difference between a person who requires rescue despite their best efforts and a person who requires rescue due to their complete negligence. There is no "bright line" between these two groups, but it's often quite clear on the ground whether or not someone had the respect for the situation that they should have. Search and rescue operations for these individuals are often shorter and lower risk, anyway, because they leave behind information (or even carry communication devices) that make them easier to find, and their preparation may make their injuries less severe or better handled by the time rescuers arrive.

by sinker 6y ago

twblalock 6y ago

> I don't find the the argument that these people have any noticeable effect on the economies of the state very convincing. People can die trying to rescue others who are doing stupid stuff. That matters too.

mindcrime 6y ago
People can die trying to rescue others who are doing stupid stuff. That matters too. They can, and they do. One recent example from near where I live: https://www.firehouse.com/lodds/news/21137013/nc-rescue-squad-member-dies-in-fall-during-search https://www.firehouse.com/lodds/news/21137013/nc-rescue-squa...
- cjbprime 6y ago
  Another: https://youtu.be/51njl0n_dvI https://youtu.be/51njl0n_dvI

bananabreakfast 6y ago

Yes indeed, embarking on extreme ventures are a fundamental part of humanity and an inevitability of the risk tolerance bell curve of personality matrices. I'm certainly in no way advocating for people to not participate in outdoor activities that could be considered risky. Rather, the most important key difference here is in the individual's preparation for these activities. Yes people wingsuit, but try going to any skydiving drop zone without having quite literally hundreds of jumps with dozens as formal training in a wing suit. They will first laugh at your stupidity then get extremely serious and curse you out of the building for being a dangerous fool. People who free solo mountains are not amateurs. They have thousands of hours of training and have climbed the exact same route safely so many times they know each hold my heart. McCandless was a reckless fool. Not only had he never been to where he went with someone who knew their way around before he went alone, but he had no training doing similar things in any other proper context and that staggering lack of knowledge cost him his life. If someone has never skydived, and they saunter up to a 2000ft cliff wearing a wingsuit and jump off thinking they are taking the same risk as the extensively trained professionals they've watched on youtube then that makes them a reckless fool as well.

sinker 6y ago
People put up the same comments about Alex Honnold when the Free Solo documentary made the front page of HN. That he was an irresponsible jerk who lived only for himself. Ultimately, the individual pays the greatest price. There is a difference where you if you want to set the land-speed record on a public highway in rush hour versus going out alone into the wilderness or climbing a mountain without a rope. The difference is where you draw the line. I believe that if any individual desires to stake out into the wilderness, alone, live in nature, hunt, and forage without a whisper to society at large - that is precisely the place where you would go. If not in wilderness, then where?
- obmelvin 6y ago
  >People put up the same comments about Alex Honnold when the Free Solo documentary made the front page of HN. That he was an irresponsible jerk who lived only for himself. There is a big difference between these two cases. Honnold's level of preparation is hardly even comparable to McCandless lack of even basic knowledge of his surroundings.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    Sure, but how do we quantify that? There's no state board that certifies you as a professional free solo climber. Say you're a park ranger at Yosemite. Lately, somebody has been parking a suspicious-looking van near the trailhead at El Capitan, so you're keeping an eye out for trouble. You see someone exit the van one morning carrying nothing but the clothes on his back, and you follow him down the trail to the cliff face. He grabs an outcropping and starts climbing like an escaped mental patient. You have the authority to stop him, since he's clearly behaving recklessly. What do you do? How does your decision differ from that of a ranger who sees Chris McCandless leave the trail in an unmarked area?
    - philistine 6y ago
      “Hey, stop there for a bit, lets have a chat so I can ascertain your skill level.” Not every problem is a nail and requires a hammer (stopping someone).

CamperBob2 6y ago

The free-soloing example is a good one, I think. Can anyone come up with a way to prohibit self-destructive people like Chris McCandless from thoughtlessly putting himself and others at risk, while also leaving room for an Alex Honnold to do his thing without state interference? My personal take is that no one is forced to be on a search/rescue team. Those guys and gals are invariably adrenaline junkies, just like the people they rescue, and they're equally passionate about adventure in the outdoors. The only real difference is that they have the professional qualifications needed to do their paid or volunteer work as safely as possible. And they need something to do, just like the rest of us.

EdwardDiego 6y ago
...There's not much adrenaline in searching for a lost hiker. It's laborious and methodical work. Now, alpine/cliff rescue, yep, that's a tad more exciting.

nefitty 6y ago

To me there’s a difference between a Chris McCandless and an Alex Honnold. If Honnold wasn’t so devoted to preparation it would be irresponsible to let him climb mountains without harnesses.

sinker 6y ago
Who is the party that "lets" him climb mountains?
- nefitty 6y ago
  Good point. I picture our friends and family having some sliver of responsibility for our wellbeing, however slight that burden may be.
  - antepodius 6y ago
    Responsibility, but not direct power (hopefully). If he really wants to endanger his life like that, how could you stop him?

jcrawfordor 6y ago

The concern is not primarily economic. In many areas, search and rescue personnel are primarily unpaid volunteers and the cost involved could be quite small. The larger issue is that searchers regularly expose themselves to personal risk in order to recover missing people. While searchers are better prepared, they often operate in large numbers and the realities of the situation require them to handle conditions which they would normally consider too dangerous (rough terrain, poor weather, etc). This makes injuries, and occasional fatalities, inevitable. Even without any injuries they spend a great deal of their time and energy on an effort that may have been unnecessary had the missing person taken better precautions. There is some nuance here: the reality is that well-prepared people doing the best they can do become lost or injured and require rescue. This is not a "bad" thing but simply the result of activities that are not risk-free, and everything from government agency capabilities to volunteer SAR exist to mitigate this risk. But there is a difference between a person who requires rescue despite their best efforts and a person who requires rescue due to their complete negligence. There is no "bright line" between these two groups, but it's often quite clear on the ground whether or not someone had the respect for the situation that they should have. Search and rescue operations for these individuals are often shorter and lower risk, anyway, because they leave behind information (or even carry communication devices) that make them easier to find, and their preparation may make their injuries less severe or better handled by the time rescuers arrive.