Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Free Solo and Economic Growth

johnhcochrane.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#61

Post by aeorgnoieang »

skohan wrote: post #19
tomxor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Climbing without protection has more to do with being a daredevil than a climber. I think it's important to recognise that there are many different ways to get up a piece of rock, these are a choice in "style", and each style has different challenges, different qualities etc. No one style is better than another, they are a personal choice, and this is part of what makes the sport so great... if you want to invent a…

I understand what you're saying, and I'm all for people finding what they enjoy and defining the sport on their own terms. What gets me about free solo climbing is the sheer level of risk involved. Even for the best in the world, there are too many variables which simply can't be controlled in a climb like that, which is evidenced by the high rate of death for free-solo climbers. I fully support anyone's right to dec…

> ... the high rate of death for free-solo climbers.

Honnold made an interesting point in his latest (?) appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast: none of the top free solo climbers has died on a hard free solo climb (and many didn't die free solo climbing, or even climbing, at all).

And of course lots of people die climbing with ropes and protection too, even highly skilled and experience climbers.

Most people would probably consider any significant climb to be 'too risky'. As I disagree, I don't think I can reasonably fault anyone else for choosing some other higher level of risk as being 'too risky'.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#62

Post by mbostleman »

There's a couple the things the author missed - not that it changes the conclusion that much, but adds more context.

The first is how the rise in indoor rock gyms in turn gave rise to youth leagues and competition. This has created a huge leap forward in the skills of elite climbers because many today (the "gym rat" generation) have been climbing only slightly less longer than they've been walking.

The second is how the funding of outdoor adventure/exploration has evolved through the last couple of centuries, from securing precious resources (though mountaineering never had much of that), to a sort of angel/philanthropic model (geographic societies and alpine clubs), to government backed nationalism, to the current gear branding and sponsorship that is fueled by social media. This current model drives a huge amount of activity in outdoor endeavors that have helped create the crowd sourced effect he's talking about.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#63

Post by lpcam33 »

dpflan wrote: post #2

Regarding economic growth and growth theories, I found Dr. Paul Romer's (2018 Economics winner) Nobel Prize Lecture on his work, economic growth theories, and hope for the future to be excellent and stimulating. > Paul M. Romer: Lecture in Economic Sciences 2018 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZmgZGIZtiM > Nobel Page : https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/rom...

In the video the economist talks about progress just as if progress is the end in itself, but is not. We need to have a goal in order to progress to that goal. To have infinite progress is the same to say that at least one of this things:

We don’t know where we want to go; We are infinitely greed; We are infinitely incompetent;

We can use the example of the rope. There was many technological progress in the last decades to manufacture good gear for climbing, but as time goes by we will need to spend much more resources in research to get less and less improvements on the rope. There will be a time were the climber needs are fulfilled and we could just spare the nature (ex: the mountains that they like to climb) and enjoy what we have accomplished.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#64

Post by skohan »

aeorgnoieang wrote: post #61
skohan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm all for people finding what they enjoy and defining the sport on their own terms. What gets me about free solo climbing is the sheer level of risk involved. Even for the best in the world, there are too many variables which simply can't be controlled in a climb like that, which is evidenced by the high rate of death for free-solo climbers. I fully support anyone's right to dec…

> ... the high rate of death for free-solo climbers. Honnold made an interesting point in his latest (?) appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast: none of the top free solo climbers has died on a hard free solo climb (and many didn't die free solo climbing, or even climbing, at all). And of course lots of people die climbing with ropes and protection too, even highly skilled and experience climbers. Most people would probab…

I would have to see some statistics before I would find that argument convincing that free solo climbing is just one of many risky activities.

Also I don’t find it very compelling if climbers tend to die on easier free solo climbs rather than harder ones. I don’t really care what the grade was on a climb if it kills me.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#65

Post by rurp »

tomxor wrote: post #22
zopa wrote: post #11

There's much more technology involved than Cochrane acknowledges. Alex didn't on-sight that climb: he practiced, over and over again, using ropes and gear that have existed in their current form for 60 years at best. The same goes for how he got so good: he climbed with ropes and gear (well, sometimes), and learned from people who used gear nearly all the time. Much of that technology looks old, but isn't: ropes have…

> Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century British mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan climbers in 1350? Even through the early 19th century climbers were much better than given credit for, part of this is also how grading shifts over time. I've experienced this first hand, climbed some…

I learned out how to climb multi-pitch at Tahquitz, where the American grading system was first established. 5.9+ in that area is a terrifying grade. American grades were originally a closed system that topped out at 5.9. For a time climbers were climbing harder and harder routes, but rating them all 5.9. The system eventually got switched to be open ended, but grades are sticky and it definitely helps to know when a route was established in addition to what the guide book rating is.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#66

Post by egl2019 »

FrojoS wrote: post #28
moredhel wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that more modern climbing gear is fantastic and definitely gives me a great deal of confidence when I am pushing my limits, I don't think that it would stop me from pushing at all. Even using gear from 30-40 years ago, it is possible to climb with relative safety, the new gear is mainly only an incremental improvement in safety. That's not to say that I would happily take a fall on older equipment, just that…

> Even using gear from 30-40 years ago, it is possible to climb with relative safety, the new gear is mainly only an incremental improvement in safety. Yes, but isn't that also roughly when modern sport climbing started? Nylon ropes for climbing were introduced about 55y ago, though, I don't know when they became wide spread. Same for modern harness, modern bolts and quick draws. So your ~40y ago might be roughly cor…

Not just nylon ropes, but multi-fall ropes: in the early 70's, we didn't trust a rope after it had taken a hard fall. You can't learn a big-wall route if you have to retire your rope after every long fall.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#67

Post by rurp »

skohan wrote: post #64
aeorgnoieang wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... the high rate of death for free-solo climbers. Honnold made an interesting point in his latest (?) appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast: none of the top free solo climbers has died on a hard free solo climb (and many didn't die free solo climbing, or even climbing, at all). And of course lots of people die climbing with ropes and protection too, even highly skilled and experience climbers. Most people would probab…

I would have to see some statistics before I would find that argument convincing that free solo climbing is just one of many risky activities. Also I don’t find it very compelling if climbers tend to die on easier free solo climbs rather than harder ones. I don’t really care what the grade was on a climb if it kills me.

In that same podcast Alex said that he had more or less stopped soloing easy routes, reserving solos for rare big accomplishment climbs, which makes a lot of sense to me. As a long time climber, I can't think of a single climber who died on an extremely difficult solo, but can easily name a half dozen or more elite climbers who died on easy terrain.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#68

Post by tomxor »

rurp wrote: post #65
tomxor wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century British mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan climbers in 1350? Even through the early 19th century climbers were much better than given credit for, part of this is also how grading shifts over time. I've experienced this first hand, climbed some…

I learned out how to climb multi-pitch at Tahquitz, where the American grading system was first established. 5.9+ in that area is a terrifying grade. American grades were originally a closed system that topped out at 5.9. For a time climbers were climbing harder and harder routes, but rating them all 5.9. The system eventually got switched to be open ended, but grades are sticky and it definitely helps to know when a…

Yes it was the same for the British adjectival trad system, ES used to be the top grade (after HVS) and this grade is now divided into an open ended scale E1-E11... but I think this probably caused some hard climbs to be categorised as HVS in an attempt to differentiate from the _really_ hard climbs in ES at the time. It's worth checking the FA date around this grade in old crags for this reason, but even being aware in my case - it was surprising just how much harder they can be.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#69

Post by rurp »

burritofanatic wrote: post #43

This is a very interesting look at climbing as it relates to knowledge transmission. Prior to YouTube, learning proper form really required you to probably take lessons and live/breath/be super friendly with some really good climbers as a necessity. Now, you can watch a number of good climbers online on having proper technique to get 70% there. For example this video demonstrates how climbing crimps (a specific type…

I might be biased since I learned to climb before YouTube, but I find it quite difficult to learn or teach others through coaching or watching. Although I don't think that holds for the basics, if someone doesn't know what a drop knee is then a video of one would be helpful.

But past that, so much depends on subtle weight shifts and tailoring moves to ones specific body; it's hard to learn that stuff outside of just trying hard moves yourself and making small adjustments.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#70

Post by tomxor »

rurp wrote: post #67
skohan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have to see some statistics before I would find that argument convincing that free solo climbing is just one of many risky activities. Also I don’t find it very compelling if climbers tend to die on easier free solo climbs rather than harder ones. I don’t really care what the grade was on a climb if it kills me.

In that same podcast Alex said that he had more or less stopped soloing easy routes, reserving solos for rare big accomplishment climbs, which makes a lot of sense to me. As a long time climber, I can't think of a single climber who died on an extremely difficult solo, but can easily name a half dozen or more elite climbers who died on easy terrain.

I think this makes sense for an advanced free soloist like Alex - but does not invalidate soling easy climbs for everyone, part of the skill of free soloing is in training the mind, keeping control and conditioning yourself with the feeling of fear. You have to work up to that, and choosing lower grades helps you build those strengths - but continuing to climb them once they feel too easy (mentally), will leave you with relaxed focus, which is of course deadly.
Post reply on HN