Comment by grecy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by grecy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It certainly is a very dividing topic. I estimate that the comments on my personal trip to the bus [1] are split 50/50 between people that admire Chris' story, and people that think he was a dumbass.

I think the argument boils whether Chris was unprepared (mentally and equipment-wise) to go into the Alaskan wilderness. If you read "Into the Wild", and the newer "Back to the Wild" book which has entries from his diary and photos from his cameras, I think it's clear Chris was very prepared mentally - he knew exactly what he was trying to do, and he knew exactly how dangerous it was. He spent months working out, climbing mountains with his heavy pack, and researching wild edible berries and game in preparation for what he wanted to do. This shows he had a clear mind going in.

So essentially, he was trying to do something dangerous, with the minimum amount of gear possible.

This is no different from the countless people that attempt to climb Everest or K2 without oxygen and perish in the attempt. Those people are not considered dumb asses. Neither are the countless thousands and thousands that perish getting out there and pushing themselves as best as they can.

A person's level of preparedness for any life adventure is clearly their own choosing. Who are we to say that someone was foolish for attempting to push the boundaries of what they thought they were capable of?

Even worse, if someone were to be the first to summit some mountain or other without oxygen, they would be hailed a hero. If they died, they'd be a dumb ass. The outcome should not have any baring on if they were "prepared enough" or not - only they can make that choice for themselves.

--

As a side note, have you even spent any time in Alaska or with Alaskans? I live up here. If you were to go more than 10 yards from a highway and didn't have a quad, rifle, chainsaw, axe, saw, three pairs of boots, sixteen gloves, spare everything, spare gasoline, 300lb wall tent & stove, sat phone and a spot satellite messenger and you so much as broke a fingernail, Alaskans would very quickly point out you're a complete dumb-ass for being so horribly unprepared. Even worse, you go by yourself.

[1] http://theroadchoseme.com/the-magic-bus

I'm sorry, but if you think you can climb Everest without oxygen, and die in the attempt, you were a dumb-ass. Full stop.

Luckily there are plenty of people that don't agree with you, who are willing to try and push the limits of what humanity can do.

We're all going to die, you know.

Stats on deaths with/without oxygen: http://faculty.washington.edu/hueyrb/pdfs/jama.pdf

Contemplating, or perhaps risking (at one's choice), death brings appreciation of life. And possibly, what's important.

Given that over a thousand people have climbed Everest at this point, it seems to me that climbing Everest is about the most boring/pretentious thing I could imagine doing (compared to all the other interesting things you can do in this world)

Ironically, this post makes you sound rather pretentious

You're joking. It's still an amazing feat of endurance. People still die making the attempt. And there are 7 billion people in the world. So that means that 0.0000000142857143% of the world have done the climb.

In your case, I would focus on learning how to do math with percentages first, THEN climb Everest.

Oops, forgot to times by 100. My bad. That's 0.000014285571%.

But then we can remove over 7 billion people who have never made a basic mathematical error, as you're right - the ability to do arithmetic is a critical skill in extreme mountaineering.

This leaves us with a world population of 1. It must feel great to be the only inerrant mathematical mountaineer in the world - was that skill learned, or is it innate?

I admit making fun of your math was a bit trollish of me :)

Every comment from the first one you made in this thread has been trollish.

What have you done that less than a thousand people have done? I'm always interested in learning about awesome things to do.

We all do things like this everyday... And these probably do more to help make the world a better/more interesting place than another person climbing Everest.

When you say "we all do things like this everyday", what precisely do you do on a daily basis that is the equivalent of climbing the highest mountain on earth?

We all do things like help teach children, or create online resources for others, or add some detail to a small corner of science or other area of human knowledge. These are all more valuable than risking your life and littering a landmark and then telling people you're the 1473rd person to climb Everest.

(Mt. Everest's filthy secret: It's a dump http://theweek.com/article/index/244854/mt-everests-filthy-s...)

You have a point. In the grand scheme of life, you are right. While I do volunteer to help others, I also like to occasionally do things for myself. That is what I was asking about.

Interesting article too, thank you for sharing.

If you are Edmund Hillary, then knock yourself out. Climbing Everest today isn't pushing the limits of humanity. It is no more admirable than playing Russian Roulette.

It sounds like we're implying we should all either do something off the scale epic (like Hillary, or Felix jumping from space, or Amundsen) or we should all do mundane stuff for our entire lives.

I personally think people need to get out there and have their own adventures. For person 1 an adventure might be getting outside their comfort zone and talking to a stranger they find attractive in their apartment building. For person 2 adventure might be doing a 5 mile day-hike in a National Park, where-as for person 3 an adventure might be sailing around the world.

The fact all of those have been done before doesn't diminish the scale of the adventure for the individual, nor does it give us any right to comment on whether we think it's a worthy pursuit or in fact "adventure" at all.

Everybody needs to do what's right for them, with the level of planning and preparedness that's right for them.

Problem is this completely ignores the native peoples who view the mountain as sacred, and the workers that attempt to either save you or remove your remains from the mountain.

Yes, what a noble way to go! Except for the poor saps that have to deal with your mess after you're gone.

> workers that attempt to either save you or remove your remains from the mountain

The Sherpas are paid to maintain the mountain for the tourists who climb there. Customers negotiate for whatever services the Sherpas are willing to provide. If you want to find injustices you'll have to look deeper than a simple choice to attempt to summit without oxygen.

And if you don't die?

Folks like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Boukreev, who are certainly not dumb-asses, have what seems to be an arguably reasonable viewpoint on supplementary oxygen: It gives you a very false sense of security, and that false sense of security (because of oxygen or whatever) is what really kills people.

People die on Everest, regardless of how well they were prepared physically, mentally, or materially. Not taking oxygen is not the worst way to be unprepared, it likely only means you will give up sooner. The sooner you give up on the attempt on the peak, the more likely you are to survive it.

> The sooner you give up on the attempt on the peak, the more likely you are to survive it.

Are you implying giving up (or in fact not trying at all) is the best approach?

Are you implying that surviving is more important that reaching the summit?

> Even worse, you go by yourself.

This. A lone human is many, many times more vulnerable than even a couple. There is a reason why we tend to stick together.

In this particular case, the article seems to be trying to exonerate McCandless because the poison that killed him was unknown at the time. But if he'd gone with someone else, or even organised someone to drop in occasionally, he'd have survived. His loner instinct made his death almost inevitable, dumbass or no.

Interesting aside: given the high price of loner genes, we still have loners. Evolution is an amazing process.

It seems you've failed to understand why Chris McCandless went to Alaska in the first place. I'll give you a clue, it wasn't because of it's bustling social scene.

What about Dick Proenneke [0], another notable 'Alaska Loner'. He spent 30 years living 'Alone in the Wilderness'. Albeit in the relative safety of a cabin he'd built and he did have semi-frequency supply drops.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Proenneke

> Those people are not considered dumb asses.

Wait. Why exactly are they not considered dumb asses? I sure do consider them that.

Such a stupid insult.

Guy goes into the wilderness unprepared. Dies. People say he is a dumb ass. Most agree.

Other guy climbs a mountain that others have climbed, also unprepared -- hero, pushing the boundaries, expanding humanity's reach. Please...

> Other guy climbs a mountain that others have climbed, also unprepared

You're saying he's unprepared because he didn't take every single possible device to aid him (oxygen).

What about all the people that take every single thing possible, spend years and years training, are extremely prepared, and still die anyway.

Are they dumb asses?

> Are they dumb asses?

Less so. Depending how informed and prepared they are.

Now people can kill themselves if they want to. Certainly only so much can be done to warn or stop them, but it also doesn't make them immune from being called dumb asses.

For example I don't see how knowing the risks and choosing to ignore them while climbing a mountain and getting killed in the process is more noble or worthy of praise than getting drunk and wanting to launch fireworks from your shirt pocket and getting killed in the process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com