Hacker News Reader

Comment by regulation_d | Hacker News Reader

If you're going to Healy, AK, chances are you're not just doing it for the gram.

I remember reading Into The Wild in my twenties and feeling a strong connection to Alex. Even if going to the bus wasn't a wise decision, I feel it's only human to want to cultivate those types of connections. I never went to the bus, but I was definitely curious what Alex was experiencing in the final days of his life.

I agree with GP that it's a cautionary tale, but it's more than that. It's caused thousands of people to think more about the way they live their lives. Seems a bit more substantive than simply trying to get a selfie, don't you think?

View on HN

There's a significant trade in people who go to the top of Everest "for the gram." I think you're underestimating the willful foolishness of people. The Last Week Tonight episode on Everest is useful viewing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bchx0mS7XOY

Everest is even worse than "doing it for the gram". It's not just that they're doing it for attention that's disgusting. It's that they're literally trying use wealth to buy achievement without doing the actual work of achievement.

It used to be that Everest was a crowning achievement in a mountaineer's career. To top out, you would have to climb many, many other mountains in preparation, building skills, physique, and relationships with other mountaineers.

But now people regularly reach the top of Everest as their first (and often last) summit. If you have never reached the top of a major mountain before, you're a beginner mountaineer. And if Everest is summitted by dozens of beginner mountaineers every year, it's a beginner mountain. The primary barrier to Everest now is amassing ~$40k in expendable income to pay sherpas to drag you to the summit.

It's worth noting that what the sherpas do is still extraordinary.

To me, a celebrity bus is not more substantive than the Grand Canyon. This would include Furthur if it still existed. YMMV.

I don't think the person you are responding to was saying that a celebrity bus is more substantive than the Grand Canyon.

I think they were saying that going to a place because it has meaning for an ideal of breaking dependence on society is more substantive than going to a place so you can take a picture to get attention on the internet. It's not about the place, it's about your reasons for going there.

The Grand Canyon is a place with incredible splendor, and I am sure there are people who go there for substantive reasons too.

The bus is famous for a best selling book and a Hollywood movie. It's what Eco might call "hyperreal." It signifies breaking dependence on society not a breaking of dependence. The Grand Canyon doesn't require knowing the story. It forces acceptance that one does not and cannot know the story.

Admittedly, that doesn't make for a good movie.

I'd like to respond to what you're saying, but I don't understand it. Would you mind clarifying?

Are you familiar with Eco’s work?

I've read only Foucalt's Pendulum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com