4 ms·

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 fo

by 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
      I don't understand what you're saying here, sorry. It seems self-contradictory. In any case, once the climber has been stopped for questioning, the ranger has to make a judgment call that he/she definitely isn't qualified to make. "Hmm. This guy says he's pretty sure he can make it to the top of El Capitan without any gear. Should I let him try?" What do you think the ranger's most likely response is going to be, assuming that they have a basic sense of morality, that they like their job and want to keep it, and that they don't enjoy cleaning up after fatal mishaps? (Difficulty: the climber is in good shape and knows what he's doing, but he isn't Honnold. He actually is a suicidal person. Now, did your ranger make the right call?)
    - antepodius 6y ago
      "No thanks, I'm good." What now?
- sinker 6y ago
  You're contending the weakest part of my argument. I'm not making a comparison of the climbing skill of Honnold. The comparison is in that both climbing and wilderness exploration are individualistic events where the consequences are imposed almost entirely on the individual.
angleofrepose 6y ago
This is an interesting thread and I appreciate both you and bananabreakfast for it. America has a unique perspective of the wild among western countries. The way this manifests itself is that the American wild is furnished at an absolute bare minimum, as opposed to the European wild with huts, villages, towns and resorts around every bend. The European property is not owned by the government in the same way it is owned by the government in the United States. This is likely a result of incredibly low population density of the United States as whole, especially of wild places in the United States, and also the result of the near extinction of native peoples by colonizers and awful control by the subsequent American government. Property and ownership also has a unique definition for the United States, and the "wild" referred to in this conversation is owned by the government, plain and simple. With this perspective it should be clear why individuals cannot just go out and "do whatever they like" even if this is a hypothetical argument. There is no un-owned place in the United States. There are positives and negatives to this reality, but it is reality and should help to ground the conversation. I wonder what another model that could fit the massive expanses of space set aside in the Unite States; certainly one with a less consistent hierarchy of responsibility would be worse than the current system. It is also important to realize how artificial the "wild" is in the United States given the American philosophy of individualism and property ownership, especially given the status of the population as exceptionally empowered by rights, wealth and technology. I say artificial because without the organization that protects the wild spaces, they would not exist as they do today. It would be interesting to discuss the meaning of "the wild" or its equivalents in other cultures, as I imagine we would see an incredible variety of meaning. I, however, have mainly experienced and philosophized about the American and European wilds. I deeply resonate with the sentiment expressed by the Alaskan ranger in the top level comment. As a guide of private and commercial expeditions I am constantly amazed at the alternate realities of understanding and respect people have about wilderness and I cherish my role, however small, as an ambassador to the wild. I know a few Search and Rescue workers, volunteers and Rangers, they regret their job as babysitters for the incompetent but command respect by outdoorsmen. They are essential to the wild as we have it in the United States. I used the word unique in this piece too much, but there are a number of special things about the United States and the American psyche that are central to this conversation. I do not claim these perspectives are right or correct or ideal, but it is how I see it today.

by sinker 6y ago

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
    I don't understand what you're saying here, sorry. It seems self-contradictory. In any case, once the climber has been stopped for questioning, the ranger has to make a judgment call that he/she definitely isn't qualified to make. "Hmm. This guy says he's pretty sure he can make it to the top of El Capitan without any gear. Should I let him try?" What do you think the ranger's most likely response is going to be, assuming that they have a basic sense of morality, that they like their job and want to keep it, and that they don't enjoy cleaning up after fatal mishaps? (Difficulty: the climber is in good shape and knows what he's doing, but he isn't Honnold. He actually is a suicidal person. Now, did your ranger make the right call?)
  - antepodius 6y ago
    "No thanks, I'm good." What now?
sinker 6y ago
You're contending the weakest part of my argument. I'm not making a comparison of the climbing skill of Honnold. The comparison is in that both climbing and wilderness exploration are individualistic events where the consequences are imposed almost entirely on the individual.

angleofrepose 6y ago

This is an interesting thread and I appreciate both you and bananabreakfast for it. America has a unique perspective of the wild among western countries. The way this manifests itself is that the American wild is furnished at an absolute bare minimum, as opposed to the European wild with huts, villages, towns and resorts around every bend. The European property is not owned by the government in the same way it is owned by the government in the United States. This is likely a result of incredibly low population density of the United States as whole, especially of wild places in the United States, and also the result of the near extinction of native peoples by colonizers and awful control by the subsequent American government. Property and ownership also has a unique definition for the United States, and the "wild" referred to in this conversation is owned by the government, plain and simple. With this perspective it should be clear why individuals cannot just go out and "do whatever they like" even if this is a hypothetical argument. There is no un-owned place in the United States. There are positives and negatives to this reality, but it is reality and should help to ground the conversation. I wonder what another model that could fit the massive expanses of space set aside in the Unite States; certainly one with a less consistent hierarchy of responsibility would be worse than the current system. It is also important to realize how artificial the "wild" is in the United States given the American philosophy of individualism and property ownership, especially given the status of the population as exceptionally empowered by rights, wealth and technology. I say artificial because without the organization that protects the wild spaces, they would not exist as they do today. It would be interesting to discuss the meaning of "the wild" or its equivalents in other cultures, as I imagine we would see an incredible variety of meaning. I, however, have mainly experienced and philosophized about the American and European wilds. I deeply resonate with the sentiment expressed by the Alaskan ranger in the top level comment. As a guide of private and commercial expeditions I am constantly amazed at the alternate realities of understanding and respect people have about wilderness and I cherish my role, however small, as an ambassador to the wild. I know a few Search and Rescue workers, volunteers and Rangers, they regret their job as babysitters for the incompetent but command respect by outdoorsmen. They are essential to the wild as we have it in the United States. I used the word unique in this piece too much, but there are a number of special things about the United States and the American psyche that are central to this conversation. I do not claim these perspectives are right or correct or ideal, but it is how I see it today.