4 ms·

I generally agree with you, but I do want to point out that the same could be said for deep sea diving, nascar, jumping out of a plane, flying in a plane at all

I generally agree with you, but I do want to point out that the same could be said for deep sea diving, nascar, jumping out of a plane, flying in a plane at all, going to space, running drugs across a border, and telling your mother-in-law what you really think. Some humans seem to have a different kind of risk tolerance than you and I do. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ke88y 3y ago
> for deep sea diving FWIW, I have literally never heard of a rock guide or mountain guide free soloing with a paying client...
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  It depends what you count as free solo. In the alps you definitely can book tours without a rope, that involve low grade climbing, that most not mountain people would consider as free solo. And it is the same principle there. One wrong step and you fall to death. And people do. But experienced guides can minimize the risk, by going routes, the client can manage.
  - detourdog 3y ago
    Knowing the Swiss attitude a guide would refuse to help someone get over their head. This is also called passing down techniques through oral tradition.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jacurtis 3y ago
I know it is semantics, but the activities you listed are all very different than free soloing. I'm not trying to pull a "no true Scotsman" here, they are genuinely much different. What you list are activities that have risk. But in all of these activities there are considerations to implement safety to preserve the participant as much as possible. Most of these activities the participants have multiple layers of safety in case something happens in order to minimize the risk. Sky diving, Nascar, Plane Flying, Space exploration, deep sea diving, all prepare for the worst and implement safeguards to minimize it. The risk is continually minimized. Of the activities you list, trad-climbing/sport-climbing would be the free-solo equivalent. This the relatively safe method of rock climbing that most people participate in. There is still risk and people still die. But you can make mistakes and the safeguards generally protect you from death. Free soloing is a level above that. In free soloing, the risk of imminent death is a feature, not a bug. It is embraced as the core of the activity. The only comparable activity equivalent I can think of to Free Soloing is wing suit base jumping, although even that is often done with backup safety systems, so it still puts it a tiny step ahead. In other words, you could think of all those activities as something people choose to do DESPITE the risks, but free soloing is done BECAUSE of the risks. That makes it very different from other adventure activities. It's also worth noting that the last two examples (drug running and coming clean to your mother-in-law) are just a matter of necessity and survival. While there's technically choice in both activities, it is only done as a last resort despite the risks, which put those into a 3rd category. They are usually involuntary activities.
- CMCDragonkai 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure this depends on the person doing the activity. Every safety feature just allows us to push the boundary further. I've personally done some mountain gliding and there's serious risk there of death if you keep pushing the boundaries of speed, altitude, terrain, weather... Etc. The element of risk focuses the mind and gives you confidence over other less dangerous (more mundane) aspects of life later. In order words, it gives you perspective.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "Every safety feature just allows us to push the boundary further" Yes. Climbing with a rope makes you climb more dangerous areas. You plan for falling (which comes always with a risk involved). When free solo, you do not. So unless you literally have a death wish, you climb way below the level, you would do with a rope.
- palata 3y ago
  I don't completely agree. Climbing up a ladder is some kind of free soloing, and you could kill yourself if something really bad happens. Even walking down stairs is dangerous if you don't master it. That's why we don't let babies close to stairs: they could kill themselves. But an adult is so confident at using stairs that they don't consider it a risk anymore. Not that accidents never happen, but that is a risk that we are all willing to take because we "master" stair-climbing. I see it similarly for free solo: one can master it to the point where climbing a route is fairly safe. It would be extremely dangerous for most humans, but for those, it is not. It is still risky, of course, but then some people die skiing slowly on-piste, and we don't say that it was "suicide". Obviously, some people will take more or less risk when free soloing. But some people take a lot of risks while driving, and we don't say that "driving a car is equivalent to suicide" for most drivers.
- detourdog 3y ago
  I think it's a mistake to state that free soloing is done because of the risks. The risks may seem central to the process and they are integral to the planning process. Some people like to climb and don't see the risk you apparently see. The other sports that have no safety features and may look risky would be cliff diving and free diving.
mock-possum 3y ago
Not really a great comparison, because none of the danger in those other cases could be trivially negated with a sturdy rope. Lead climbing is plenty dangerous, but the danger is mitigated as a feature of the practice itself - you get ‘save points’ to literally fall back in case you fail. Free soloing chooses not to take advantage of this safety measure. It’s be like saying “race car driving is inherently dangerous” while refusing to wear a seat belt and helmet. The no, safety gear exists and has been extensively developed over decades of practice - you are simply refusing to avail yourself of it.

ke88y 3y ago

> for deep sea diving FWIW, I have literally never heard of a rock guide or mountain guide free soloing with a paying client...

hutzlibu 3y ago
It depends what you count as free solo. In the alps you definitely can book tours without a rope, that involve low grade climbing, that most not mountain people would consider as free solo. And it is the same principle there. One wrong step and you fall to death. And people do. But experienced guides can minimize the risk, by going routes, the client can manage.
- detourdog 3y ago
  Knowing the Swiss attitude a guide would refuse to help someone get over their head. This is also called passing down techniques through oral tradition.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jacurtis 3y ago

I know it is semantics, but the activities you listed are all very different than free soloing. I'm not trying to pull a "no true Scotsman" here, they are genuinely much different. What you list are activities that have risk. But in all of these activities there are considerations to implement safety to preserve the participant as much as possible. Most of these activities the participants have multiple layers of safety in case something happens in order to minimize the risk. Sky diving, Nascar, Plane Flying, Space exploration, deep sea diving, all prepare for the worst and implement safeguards to minimize it. The risk is continually minimized. Of the activities you list, trad-climbing/sport-climbing would be the free-solo equivalent. This the relatively safe method of rock climbing that most people participate in. There is still risk and people still die. But you can make mistakes and the safeguards generally protect you from death. Free soloing is a level above that. In free soloing, the risk of imminent death is a feature, not a bug. It is embraced as the core of the activity. The only comparable activity equivalent I can think of to Free Soloing is wing suit base jumping, although even that is often done with backup safety systems, so it still puts it a tiny step ahead. In other words, you could think of all those activities as something people choose to do DESPITE the risks, but free soloing is done BECAUSE of the risks. That makes it very different from other adventure activities. It's also worth noting that the last two examples (drug running and coming clean to your mother-in-law) are just a matter of necessity and survival. While there's technically choice in both activities, it is only done as a last resort despite the risks, which put those into a 3rd category. They are usually involuntary activities.

CMCDragonkai 3y ago
I'm pretty sure this depends on the person doing the activity. Every safety feature just allows us to push the boundary further. I've personally done some mountain gliding and there's serious risk there of death if you keep pushing the boundaries of speed, altitude, terrain, weather... Etc. The element of risk focuses the mind and gives you confidence over other less dangerous (more mundane) aspects of life later. In order words, it gives you perspective.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "Every safety feature just allows us to push the boundary further" Yes. Climbing with a rope makes you climb more dangerous areas. You plan for falling (which comes always with a risk involved). When free solo, you do not. So unless you literally have a death wish, you climb way below the level, you would do with a rope.
palata 3y ago
I don't completely agree. Climbing up a ladder is some kind of free soloing, and you could kill yourself if something really bad happens. Even walking down stairs is dangerous if you don't master it. That's why we don't let babies close to stairs: they could kill themselves. But an adult is so confident at using stairs that they don't consider it a risk anymore. Not that accidents never happen, but that is a risk that we are all willing to take because we "master" stair-climbing. I see it similarly for free solo: one can master it to the point where climbing a route is fairly safe. It would be extremely dangerous for most humans, but for those, it is not. It is still risky, of course, but then some people die skiing slowly on-piste, and we don't say that it was "suicide". Obviously, some people will take more or less risk when free soloing. But some people take a lot of risks while driving, and we don't say that "driving a car is equivalent to suicide" for most drivers.
detourdog 3y ago
I think it's a mistake to state that free soloing is done because of the risks. The risks may seem central to the process and they are integral to the planning process. Some people like to climb and don't see the risk you apparently see. The other sports that have no safety features and may look risky would be cliff diving and free diving.

mock-possum 3y ago

Not really a great comparison, because none of the danger in those other cases could be trivially negated with a sturdy rope. Lead climbing is plenty dangerous, but the danger is mitigated as a feature of the practice itself - you get ‘save points’ to literally fall back in case you fail. Free soloing chooses not to take advantage of this safety measure. It’s be like saying “race car driving is inherently dangerous” while refusing to wear a seat belt and helmet. The no, safety gear exists and has been extensively developed over decades of practice - you are simply refusing to avail yourself of it.