3 ms·
I'm not sure you read the article. He did make an effort to reduce his ignorance. He was knowledgable on what was and was not edible. He had the same knowledge
by scott_s 13y ago
I'm not sure you read the article. He did make an effort to reduce his ignorance. He was knowledgable on what was and was not edible. He had the same knowledge that everyone else had, prior to the investigation of his death. It is only after investigating his death that we know that eating those seeds, while in extreme caloric deficit, is dangerous.
- jlgreco 13y agoThe point is that being in a situation where eating those seeds could be dangerous in the first place was the result of stupidity. "After subsisting for three months on a marginal diet of squirrels, porcupines, small birds, mushrooms, roots, and berries, he’d run up a huge caloric deficit and was teetering on the brink. By adding potato seeds to the menu, he apparently made the mistake that took him down. After July 30th, his physical condition went to hell, and three weeks later he was dead." Stupidly, he remained ignorant. That ignorance resulted in a weakened state, which allowed the seeds to be dangerous.
- scott_s 13y agoHe "remained" just as ignorant as the rest of us. You're still implying that if he had done more research, he could have found out that those seeds, in his condition, could kill him. He could not have. Yes, he took a risk. But I don't think it's a significantly different risk from other risky activities young men in their early 20s do, ranging from unusual sports to the military.
- jlgreco 13y agoHe was starving even without the seeds (it was only because he was starving already that the seeds did him in) because he did not actually know how to survive in the wild. Neither do I, but I am smart enough to know that and not attempt living in the wild.