5 ms·

I couldn't say whether you're in the minority, but I would say that the reasoning you give for your position strikes me as specious. This is a complex issue wit

I couldn't say whether you're in the minority, but I would say that the reasoning you give for your position strikes me as specious. This is a complex issue with many facets that need to be unpacked. For example, your implication that a person walking off into the woods leads to no additional demands on others only follows if you also feel that a person's decision also waives family's and friends' right to request a search and rescue operation. Because, as that article points out, it's typically not just their business. Search and rescue is dangerous and may put additional people's lives at risk. And I would, in turn, say that that position is only tenable in cases where someone has done something like filed a signed affidavit saying, "Yes, this is my attention," with the local authorities. Otherwise there's not necessarily any tenable way for authorities to tell to worried loved ones, "No, this is what they wanted, so we can't get involved." And it's clear from McCandless's own actions - especially leaving a note on the bus asking for help - that he did not really understand what he was getting into, and did ultimately desire help from others. So, ultimately, even he himself did not believe that his fate was nobody else's business. Finally, despite your assertion that, "It's not a question of moral or ethics," your entire position is inescapably an ethical position. Because one's opinion on whether society has a responsibility to attempt to protect these people, or whether it's better to simply leave them to their fate, is, by definition, an ethical position.

wonderlg 6y ago
We haven’t gotten there as a society yet, but there should be a “don’t look for me if I’m lost/captured” checkbox somewhere. It’s my life. If I want to sail around Africa and I’m held for ransom, leave me to it. If I want to hike a deadly trail, don’t come rescue me and then blame me for it. Because of the people who died looking for this bus, nobody else can now see it. As a traveler, I see this happening too often: I see a place, I do something, 5 years later you can’t anymore because someone hurt themselves. My idea is: put up a sign saying “5 people died here” and let new visitors figure it out for themselves.
- Marsymars 6y ago
  > My idea is: put up a sign saying “5 people died here” and let new visitors figure it out for themselves. Hanakapiai Beach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanakapiai_Beach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanakapiai_Beach
- simias 6y ago
  You say we haven't gotten there as a society yet and I say we haven't gotten there as individuals. I really don't think most people, and I definitely include myself in this, know themselves and the world well enough to make such a tremendous decision by themselves in the abstract. It's one thing to want an euthanasia if you're in pain and want it to stop, it's an other to say "just let me die if something goes wrong" when that possibility is a remote and abstract thing. Most of us have lived very sheltered lives. Most of us haven't felt what it's like to be really, really thirsty. Or really, really hungry. Or really, really cold. Or really, really tired. Or really, really lonely. Or really, really scared. Or all these things at the same time. I can definitely imagine many people would sign a "don't help me if I'm in danger" waiver out of principle or motivated by some romantic fantasy. Then they end up shitting themselves in a freezing hole in Alaska because they ate bad berries, and they're crying and regretting everything and would be willing to do anything to be out of this place. Suddenly the lofty ideals and the romantic movies start feeling really dumb and absurd. The principles don't matter anymore, the survival instinct kicked in a long time ago. Fortunately you have a satellite phone and you manage to call the rescue. "Sorry sir or madam, but you did sign a waiver. If you want help you'll have to pay the $300,000 standard search and rescue fee in advance. Thank you for choosing the Walt Disney Search and Rescue Services. Have a pleasant evening!".
  - keeganpoppen 6y ago
    maybe the rangers should start taking deposits lol. "safety deposits" as insurance against future rescue. i say that sarcastically, but it actually doesn't seem like the worst idea ever.
    - badestrand 6y ago
      ...or just use taxes because it's a super low amount anyway and the payment structure is already in place
      - keeganpoppen 6y ago
        (i actually agree with this, it's just everyone else seemed to think it was an awful waste of government resources to fish a few people out of the wild a year, or whatever)
- keeganpoppen 6y ago
  this is what they do at ski resorts, though only in an indirect way (putting up crosses for ski patrollers that have died there). i worry all the time about whether all the "fun skiing" in-bounds is going to be ultimately subject to a similar fate for similar reasons. so far that hasn't been the case, because i think most sufficiently dangerous skiing is so self-evidently dangerous that people mostly know what they're getting into, but it still feels like a tenuous compromise. ultimately, though, i agree with this. a sign saying "5 people died here" (maybe with w/e relevant contextual info) is the exact nature, and extent, of information that i think needs to be made clear to people.
  - echlebek 6y ago
    At Revelstoke there is a particular part of the ski boundary that has signs like this. Something to the effect of "there is a cliff beyond these trees, and people have died here, go no further".
sinker 6y ago
> your implication that a person walking off into the woods leads to no additional demands on others I don't deny that dying out alone in the wilderness does end up having a cost to others. I don't agree that the potential cost of it should preclude someone from doing it. The whole argument against McCandless begins to sound absurd. "Does an individual have the right to die alone in the wilderness?" If you pose the question this way, the answer becomes obvious. If you were to ask me if someone has the right to suicide by train or suicide by cop, or even if they have the right to jump off a bridge, I'd be inclinded to say no, or at least hesitate on the last one. But being alone in the wilderness, prepared or not, is a different category.
- echlebek 6y ago
  I'm not really sure his right to die in the wilderness is what's most pertinent about his case though. Those of us who have wilderness experience should caution others who don't to prepare and educate themselves, instead of just going for it and seeing what happens. Because what often happens is a lengthy search and rescue process, and sometimes PTSD or death. Maybe that's what he wanted, but I kind of doubt it.
  - sinker 6y ago
    The question isn't what he should or shouldn't have done. That part is crystal clear. The question is why do people feel entitled to moral indignation on account of someone hiking out alone into the wilderness. The arguments so far have not been convincing - it costs money to fly them out, it puts SAR in danger.
    - a-nikolaev 6y ago
      We are social animals. Raising one person takes a lot of work from their parents, caregivers, teachers, friends -- "It takes a village to raise a child", proverb says. This is why just letting someone fall off the cliff (on their own will or not) is not in the interest of the society as a whole.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
Gibbon1 6y ago
I'll leave this here. With half a century I've come around to the idea that there are a lot of people that tend to not make very good decisions. And it's not because they are somehow 'dumb' or even foolhardy. With that I have a hard time moralizing about them.

wonderlg 6y ago

We haven’t gotten there as a society yet, but there should be a “don’t look for me if I’m lost/captured” checkbox somewhere. It’s my life. If I want to sail around Africa and I’m held for ransom, leave me to it. If I want to hike a deadly trail, don’t come rescue me and then blame me for it. Because of the people who died looking for this bus, nobody else can now see it. As a traveler, I see this happening too often: I see a place, I do something, 5 years later you can’t anymore because someone hurt themselves. My idea is: put up a sign saying “5 people died here” and let new visitors figure it out for themselves.

Marsymars 6y ago
> My idea is: put up a sign saying “5 people died here” and let new visitors figure it out for themselves. Hanakapiai Beach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanakapiai_Beach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanakapiai_Beach
simias 6y ago
You say we haven't gotten there as a society yet and I say we haven't gotten there as individuals. I really don't think most people, and I definitely include myself in this, know themselves and the world well enough to make such a tremendous decision by themselves in the abstract. It's one thing to want an euthanasia if you're in pain and want it to stop, it's an other to say "just let me die if something goes wrong" when that possibility is a remote and abstract thing. Most of us have lived very sheltered lives. Most of us haven't felt what it's like to be really, really thirsty. Or really, really hungry. Or really, really cold. Or really, really tired. Or really, really lonely. Or really, really scared. Or all these things at the same time. I can definitely imagine many people would sign a "don't help me if I'm in danger" waiver out of principle or motivated by some romantic fantasy. Then they end up shitting themselves in a freezing hole in Alaska because they ate bad berries, and they're crying and regretting everything and would be willing to do anything to be out of this place. Suddenly the lofty ideals and the romantic movies start feeling really dumb and absurd. The principles don't matter anymore, the survival instinct kicked in a long time ago. Fortunately you have a satellite phone and you manage to call the rescue. "Sorry sir or madam, but you did sign a waiver. If you want help you'll have to pay the $300,000 standard search and rescue fee in advance. Thank you for choosing the Walt Disney Search and Rescue Services. Have a pleasant evening!".
- keeganpoppen 6y ago
  maybe the rangers should start taking deposits lol. "safety deposits" as insurance against future rescue. i say that sarcastically, but it actually doesn't seem like the worst idea ever.
  - badestrand 6y ago
    ...or just use taxes because it's a super low amount anyway and the payment structure is already in place
    - keeganpoppen 6y ago
      (i actually agree with this, it's just everyone else seemed to think it was an awful waste of government resources to fish a few people out of the wild a year, or whatever)
keeganpoppen 6y ago
this is what they do at ski resorts, though only in an indirect way (putting up crosses for ski patrollers that have died there). i worry all the time about whether all the "fun skiing" in-bounds is going to be ultimately subject to a similar fate for similar reasons. so far that hasn't been the case, because i think most sufficiently dangerous skiing is so self-evidently dangerous that people mostly know what they're getting into, but it still feels like a tenuous compromise. ultimately, though, i agree with this. a sign saying "5 people died here" (maybe with w/e relevant contextual info) is the exact nature, and extent, of information that i think needs to be made clear to people.
- echlebek 6y ago
  At Revelstoke there is a particular part of the ski boundary that has signs like this. Something to the effect of "there is a cliff beyond these trees, and people have died here, go no further".

sinker 6y ago

> your implication that a person walking off into the woods leads to no additional demands on others I don't deny that dying out alone in the wilderness does end up having a cost to others. I don't agree that the potential cost of it should preclude someone from doing it. The whole argument against McCandless begins to sound absurd. "Does an individual have the right to die alone in the wilderness?" If you pose the question this way, the answer becomes obvious. If you were to ask me if someone has the right to suicide by train or suicide by cop, or even if they have the right to jump off a bridge, I'd be inclinded to say no, or at least hesitate on the last one. But being alone in the wilderness, prepared or not, is a different category.

echlebek 6y ago
I'm not really sure his right to die in the wilderness is what's most pertinent about his case though. Those of us who have wilderness experience should caution others who don't to prepare and educate themselves, instead of just going for it and seeing what happens. Because what often happens is a lengthy search and rescue process, and sometimes PTSD or death. Maybe that's what he wanted, but I kind of doubt it.
- sinker 6y ago
  The question isn't what he should or shouldn't have done. That part is crystal clear. The question is why do people feel entitled to moral indignation on account of someone hiking out alone into the wilderness. The arguments so far have not been convincing - it costs money to fly them out, it puts SAR in danger.
  - a-nikolaev 6y ago
    We are social animals. Raising one person takes a lot of work from their parents, caregivers, teachers, friends -- "It takes a village to raise a child", proverb says. This is why just letting someone fall off the cliff (on their own will or not) is not in the interest of the society as a whole.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

Gibbon1 6y ago

I'll leave this here. With half a century I've come around to the idea that there are a lot of people that tend to not make very good decisions. And it's not because they are somehow 'dumb' or even foolhardy. With that I have a hard time moralizing about them.