6 ms·

[flagged]

voidfunc 1y ago
Some folks are adrenaline junkies. Doing this stuff when you have kids though is negligence and even worse doing it when the kid already lost one parent to the activity. Fuck those parents and anyone here that's like them.
- jwagenet 1y ago
  Most mountaineering is not an adrenaline fueled pursuit and many adrenaline junkies would find it’s often non-technical tactics boring. Is it an egotistical pursuit? Sure. Objectively hazardous? Yes. But distance cyclists and runners have more in common with mountaineers than base jumpers.
  - ip26 1y ago
    There’s class 4 mountaineers, and WI6 mountaineers. It’s often hard to tell where any one person falls on that continuum.
    - wetmore 1y ago
      The latter are generally called alpinists.
- paulcole 1y ago
  > Doing this stuff when you have kids though is negligence Obviously there’s a middle ground but nobody says that giving up the thing that you love because you have kids is negligence.
  - OrsonSmelles 1y ago
    I think having a commitment that strong to a dangerous activity should factor into whether you have kids in the first place. Maybe it doesn't make the answer an automatic "no", but I think one has to really think through one's decision to create a person who will have a disproportionate risk of major trauma in their early life and should have an extremely clear contingency plan for the child's care by someone who is genuinely psychologically and materially prepared for that eventuality. I think that to do less than that would be negligence—it might be a common type of negligence, easily obscured by romanticism about bold endeavors, but it is certainly not taking care.
    - paulcole 1y ago
      Everybody’s life sucks in some way. Some kids have parents who die rock climbing. Some kids have parents who hate their lives. You can’t prevent trauma in a kid’s life. Telling people to think more about having kids is a clear waste of breath. Whatever amount they think about it they’ll (almost always) rationalize that as the correct amount.
- prmoustache 1y ago
  In that particular story, I understand the daughter and son were already adults.
  - alecthomas 1y ago
    They were not. The daughter is 31 and her father went missing 22 years earlier.
    - stemos 1y ago
      No, according to the article, she was already 31 in 2002. > In 2002, at age 31, she'd gotten her degree to teach music around the time that Bill announced to the family that he was going to try to climb Huascarán.
- nandomrumber 1y ago
  Would we group private pilot / recreational flying in that category? It’s massively more risky than commercial flight travel and seems to serve no practical utility.
  - throwup238 1y ago
    If you break down the stats, a significant fraction (if not most) of the fatal accidents in GA are in experimental aircraft like kit builds and exotic stuff like fighter jets, despite accounting for a small fraction of the total flight hours. Most of the rest are due to preventable human error like misjudging your ability to fly in bad weather or miscalculating fuel and running out mid-flight. It’s like driving: it’s usually very safe if you don’t speed and drive tired or drunk.
    - nandomrumber 1y ago
      With the distinct difference that driving isn’t at all like flying for very obvious reasons. Miscalculating range in a ground vehicle typically has the somewhat less than fatal outcome of being at least somewhat embarrassing. Misjudging driving ability is largely a characteristic attributed to male drivers under the age of 25, and the overwhelming majority of incidents are more costly and ego injuring than fatal. Last time I checked, the average driver can expect to be involved in a fatal car accident every 200 million kilometres or so (Australian data). While general aviation appears to have a fatality rate of around 10 per million flight hours. Average speed in a car is typically well under 100 kilometres per hour, making general aviation fatality rate 10 to 20 times higher. Having said that, the law of small numbers informs that the average general aviation pilot can expect to be involved in a fatal incident approximately never.
      - Retric 1y ago
        ~10x as dangerous checks per km checks out if you assume the same distance is traveled either case. (1 fatality per 100k flight hours * 200KPH would be 1 fatality per 20 million km.) However people who fly regularly tend to have crazy high total mileage compared to the ~15k miles/year of a typical American. Which is why so many general aviation pilots die relative to car crashes, it’s just inherently a very dangerous hobby.
blackguardx 1y ago
Driving to the mountains is often more dangerous than climbing a mountain. Things change at the elite levels, but that is true for any sport.
- neckardt 1y ago
  The problem with mountains is twofold: Many mountains can be climbed without being elite while exposing yourself to major risk, and for some mountains there is objective hazard that can’t be mitigated. One example of an “easy” but high risk climb is Mt. Rainier in Washington. All you need to go up is a set of crampons and a backpack, no technical mountaineering needed. However the mountain is full of glaciers that can collapse from under you, which has killed many people. Additionally, many have slipped and then slid to their death. In my case, when I attempted Rainier I took a wrong turn at one point and almost walked off a cliff. Second: Objective Hazard. Objective hazard is risks that cannot be reasonably mitigated. Things like rockfall where a rock breaks off and falls on your head at random, or unpredictable avalanches. Mt Rainier as well has an area called the bowling alley known for its rockfall. The humans are the pins. Rainier also has an area called the icebox where cornices break off and fall into the climbing route. In 1981 the icebox killed 11 people in one day. Those climbers did everything right, but were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mountaineering is not the same as other sports. It is sometimes deceptively easy, yet there are risks that simply cannot be mitigated. Any experienced mountaineer can give you a long list of friends they know that have died. That’s the case in few other sports.
  - billy99k 1y ago
    It's the same with base jumping. I remember watching a documentary on it one time and almost all of the people being interviewed knew multiple people that died during a jump.
    - amiga386 1y ago
      They are not the same. In mountaineering, if something goes wrong, you could die. In base jumping, if you don't do everything correctly, you will die. A bit like the difference of a car engine failing (it will roll to a stop) vs an airplane engine failing (you will come down hard on the ground)
bratwurst3000 1y ago
honestly your comment and others are condescending as hell. For sure there are risks that the best planing cant safe one from but this is live. Many sports and adventures are dangerous. Doing a shitload of cocaine or alcohol is way more dangerous and shitty towards society then mountaineering. I am mountaineering and i come from a family of mountaineers. I asure you usually those people are very aware of what they are doing and the risk and they do every possible to minimize risk to the least possible. Dying is if you are professional and self conscious very very rare. It still happens but this is live and sitting there behind you screen and judging people while , I am certain, not beeing conscious enough to grasp what you do that could kill you everyday. Are you driving a car? how do you prepare to net get killed in a road accident? you know it could still happen. problem that death numbers are so high is because of social media idiots doing it for the fame and not beeing prepared while beeing 100% douches. And mountaineering. Its amazing. Why people do it? I do it because i feel so little there and the world so big. In the mountains your mind gets activated because you are not anymore the king of the city but a little animal in big nature. beeing on a summit is something that the human mind cant grasp. its feeling endless beauty. Your friends are so close to you and you did something amazing together and your body and minds knows it. its like fucking. there is a nature to its greatness. Also all the technical stuff and planning is awesome and i love every moment of it. So i hope you understand there is something about it.
- shermantanktop 1y ago
  No condescension intended. I think I understand the appeal, in the same way I understand Jack London stories, Joseph Conrad novels, Survivor, Fight Club, and that bear movie guy. We’re too civilized, we’re hothouse flowers, and a little danger makes you feel alive. Especially if you are raised with traditional masculine values. If you could have the same solitude, sweeping views, natural beauty, cameraderie, etc., but without real danger, would it have the same appeal?
  - ted_dunning 1y ago
    It would have many of the same appeals. But it really isn't possible to replicate without being in the high peaks. Car camping and backpacking have some of the appeal, but not nearly as intensely.
prmoustache 1y ago
[flagged]

[flagged]

Some folks are adrenaline junkies. Doing this stuff when you have kids though is negligence and even worse doing it when the kid already lost one parent to the activity. Fuck those parents and anyone here that's like them.

jwagenet 1y ago
Most mountaineering is not an adrenaline fueled pursuit and many adrenaline junkies would find it’s often non-technical tactics boring. Is it an egotistical pursuit? Sure. Objectively hazardous? Yes. But distance cyclists and runners have more in common with mountaineers than base jumpers.
- ip26 1y ago
  There’s class 4 mountaineers, and WI6 mountaineers. It’s often hard to tell where any one person falls on that continuum.
  - wetmore 1y ago
    The latter are generally called alpinists.
paulcole 1y ago
> Doing this stuff when you have kids though is negligence Obviously there’s a middle ground but nobody says that giving up the thing that you love because you have kids is negligence.
- OrsonSmelles 1y ago
  I think having a commitment that strong to a dangerous activity should factor into whether you have kids in the first place. Maybe it doesn't make the answer an automatic "no", but I think one has to really think through one's decision to create a person who will have a disproportionate risk of major trauma in their early life and should have an extremely clear contingency plan for the child's care by someone who is genuinely psychologically and materially prepared for that eventuality. I think that to do less than that would be negligence—it might be a common type of negligence, easily obscured by romanticism about bold endeavors, but it is certainly not taking care.
  - paulcole 1y ago
    Everybody’s life sucks in some way. Some kids have parents who die rock climbing. Some kids have parents who hate their lives. You can’t prevent trauma in a kid’s life. Telling people to think more about having kids is a clear waste of breath. Whatever amount they think about it they’ll (almost always) rationalize that as the correct amount.
prmoustache 1y ago
In that particular story, I understand the daughter and son were already adults.
- alecthomas 1y ago
  They were not. The daughter is 31 and her father went missing 22 years earlier.
  - stemos 1y ago
    No, according to the article, she was already 31 in 2002. > In 2002, at age 31, she'd gotten her degree to teach music around the time that Bill announced to the family that he was going to try to climb Huascarán.
nandomrumber 1y ago
Would we group private pilot / recreational flying in that category? It’s massively more risky than commercial flight travel and seems to serve no practical utility.
- throwup238 1y ago
  If you break down the stats, a significant fraction (if not most) of the fatal accidents in GA are in experimental aircraft like kit builds and exotic stuff like fighter jets, despite accounting for a small fraction of the total flight hours. Most of the rest are due to preventable human error like misjudging your ability to fly in bad weather or miscalculating fuel and running out mid-flight. It’s like driving: it’s usually very safe if you don’t speed and drive tired or drunk.
  - nandomrumber 1y ago
    With the distinct difference that driving isn’t at all like flying for very obvious reasons. Miscalculating range in a ground vehicle typically has the somewhat less than fatal outcome of being at least somewhat embarrassing. Misjudging driving ability is largely a characteristic attributed to male drivers under the age of 25, and the overwhelming majority of incidents are more costly and ego injuring than fatal. Last time I checked, the average driver can expect to be involved in a fatal car accident every 200 million kilometres or so (Australian data). While general aviation appears to have a fatality rate of around 10 per million flight hours. Average speed in a car is typically well under 100 kilometres per hour, making general aviation fatality rate 10 to 20 times higher. Having said that, the law of small numbers informs that the average general aviation pilot can expect to be involved in a fatal incident approximately never.
    - Retric 1y ago
      ~10x as dangerous checks per km checks out if you assume the same distance is traveled either case. (1 fatality per 100k flight hours * 200KPH would be 1 fatality per 20 million km.) However people who fly regularly tend to have crazy high total mileage compared to the ~15k miles/year of a typical American. Which is why so many general aviation pilots die relative to car crashes, it’s just inherently a very dangerous hobby.

blackguardx 1y ago

Driving to the mountains is often more dangerous than climbing a mountain. Things change at the elite levels, but that is true for any sport.

neckardt 1y ago
The problem with mountains is twofold: Many mountains can be climbed without being elite while exposing yourself to major risk, and for some mountains there is objective hazard that can’t be mitigated. One example of an “easy” but high risk climb is Mt. Rainier in Washington. All you need to go up is a set of crampons and a backpack, no technical mountaineering needed. However the mountain is full of glaciers that can collapse from under you, which has killed many people. Additionally, many have slipped and then slid to their death. In my case, when I attempted Rainier I took a wrong turn at one point and almost walked off a cliff. Second: Objective Hazard. Objective hazard is risks that cannot be reasonably mitigated. Things like rockfall where a rock breaks off and falls on your head at random, or unpredictable avalanches. Mt Rainier as well has an area called the bowling alley known for its rockfall. The humans are the pins. Rainier also has an area called the icebox where cornices break off and fall into the climbing route. In 1981 the icebox killed 11 people in one day. Those climbers did everything right, but were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mountaineering is not the same as other sports. It is sometimes deceptively easy, yet there are risks that simply cannot be mitigated. Any experienced mountaineer can give you a long list of friends they know that have died. That’s the case in few other sports.
- billy99k 1y ago
  It's the same with base jumping. I remember watching a documentary on it one time and almost all of the people being interviewed knew multiple people that died during a jump.
  - amiga386 1y ago
    They are not the same. In mountaineering, if something goes wrong, you could die. In base jumping, if you don't do everything correctly, you will die. A bit like the difference of a car engine failing (it will roll to a stop) vs an airplane engine failing (you will come down hard on the ground)

bratwurst3000 1y ago

honestly your comment and others are condescending as hell. For sure there are risks that the best planing cant safe one from but this is live. Many sports and adventures are dangerous. Doing a shitload of cocaine or alcohol is way more dangerous and shitty towards society then mountaineering. I am mountaineering and i come from a family of mountaineers. I asure you usually those people are very aware of what they are doing and the risk and they do every possible to minimize risk to the least possible. Dying is if you are professional and self conscious very very rare. It still happens but this is live and sitting there behind you screen and judging people while , I am certain, not beeing conscious enough to grasp what you do that could kill you everyday. Are you driving a car? how do you prepare to net get killed in a road accident? you know it could still happen. problem that death numbers are so high is because of social media idiots doing it for the fame and not beeing prepared while beeing 100% douches. And mountaineering. Its amazing. Why people do it? I do it because i feel so little there and the world so big. In the mountains your mind gets activated because you are not anymore the king of the city but a little animal in big nature. beeing on a summit is something that the human mind cant grasp. its feeling endless beauty. Your friends are so close to you and you did something amazing together and your body and minds knows it. its like fucking. there is a nature to its greatness. Also all the technical stuff and planning is awesome and i love every moment of it. So i hope you understand there is something about it.

shermantanktop 1y ago
No condescension intended. I think I understand the appeal, in the same way I understand Jack London stories, Joseph Conrad novels, Survivor, Fight Club, and that bear movie guy. We’re too civilized, we’re hothouse flowers, and a little danger makes you feel alive. Especially if you are raised with traditional masculine values. If you could have the same solitude, sweeping views, natural beauty, cameraderie, etc., but without real danger, would it have the same appeal?
- ted_dunning 1y ago
  It would have many of the same appeals. But it really isn't possible to replicate without being in the high peaks. Car camping and backpacking have some of the appeal, but not nearly as intensely.

prmoustache 1y ago

[flagged]