6 ms·
The last sentence of the article: "And because many people—both admirers of McCandless and his detractors—regard “Into the Wild” as a cautionary tale, it’s imp
by herbig 12y ago
The last sentence of the article:
"And because many people—both admirers of McCandless and his detractors—regard “Into the Wild” as a cautionary tale, it’s important to know as much as possible about how McCandless actually may have died."
- code_duck 12y agoDoes it really matter whether he was poisoned by one chemical or another, or simply starved to death? Either way, the cautionary tale of against deciding to go live in the woods without adequate preparation stands.
- auxym 12y agoFTA: "The death of Chris McCandless should serve as a caveat to other foragers: Even when some parts of a plant are known to be edible, other parts of the same species may contain dangerous concentrations of toxic compounds. Additionally, there may be seasonal, as well as ecotypic, variations in the concentrations of L-canavanine between various communities of H. alpinum."
- code_duck 12y agoThanks, I read the article too. That different parts of a plant may differ in toxicity is surprising at all given that some of the most common edible food such as tomatoes and potatoes exhibit similar characteristics.
- herbig 12y agoGiven the options of knowing the truth and not knowing the truth, I personally will always choose knowing.
- code_duck 12y agoI don't find the truth of whether he was poisoned by an amino acid or an alkaloid to be very enlightening.
- burkaman 12y agoWell, I think it's worth finding out just for the sake of knowing. But as a cautionary tale, yeah it still matters. Say you meet some guy planning on taking this same "adventure", you show him Into the Wild, he says "no problem, I've been hunting and trapping for 10 years, no way I'll starve". People who just think "It's a bad idea in general, I don't need to know exactly how he died" were probably not in any danger of making the same mistake. If you want to convince people on the fence, you need specifics.
- code_duck 12y agoWhether he died because he either ate a poisonous plant or starved, the issue is the same: lack of proper preparation for a food supply.
- freshyill 12y agoYou're right. But nobody ever died because they avoided the poisonous berries. The story of how he died is a good cautionary tale, and the story of how the exact cause was discovered is also interesting.
- URSpider94 12y agoMany people view foraging for food in the wilderness to be a perfectly adequate plan for having a food supply. If the theory is correct, he didn't starve to death because of poor planning, he starved to death because he ate something poisonous, which then prevented him from foraging for food. You seem to be implying that foraging isn't an OK way to feed oneself in the wilderness.
- npinguy 12y agoIt's kind of how people are scared of dying in plane crashes but not in car crashes - the illusion of control. One easily imagines doing something to avoid a car death but not a plane one. I think the same applies here: Death by starvation feels easier to avoid to a layman wilderness expert: forage more, hunt effectively, conserve supplies better, etc. But death via an obscure chemical even while in possession of a book on edible seeds...that's scary and much more likely to give one reservations about their confidence.
- jonknee 12y agoI suppose it doesn't matter if you're never going to encounter the poisonous seeds in your life, but in general it is valuable to know what will kill you and what will not.