271–280 of 474 posts
What's the matter with people?
I enjoyed reading this but I have a mixed opinion on it at the end. The rules and reasoning seem weak. Rule #1 (be prepared) seems fine. Rule #2 (be respectful) Seems to blur the distinction between respecting the danger and respecting your impact on the environment. You should of course do the latter, but not because you will be less likely to get hurt. Rule #3 (trust the statistics) I don't know what they're trying…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well he most likely died due to poisoning himself with a misidentified plant that was only ever documented as dangerous in an ancient encyclopedia over 100 years old. Nothing romantic about it, but nothing screaming "no relevant skills", either. Don't think this is the part people romanticize, I think it's the whole "I think careers are a 20th century invention and I don't think I want one" and the "Instead, I will w…
The only reason he was even still there when he died is because he didn't have a map of the area and thus couldn't figure out how to cross the river to get back.
Zooming out a bit, you could also say he died because he churned the philosophy of using the aids and crutches of civilization to maximize his hedonistic well-being at all cost - which is maybe a more interesting and ambiguous point to discuss than whether maps are useful ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a pretty big difference in the odds of a house mains electrical shock stopping your heart compared to the 1 in 6 chance of the bullet being in the chamber that lands in alignment with the barrel.
How big? Big enough to disregard? Humans are notoriously bad at evaluating probabilities and expected outcomes in probabilistic scenarios, especially in when one possible outcome is catastrophic with low probability. Otherwise you wouldn't see so many reckless distracted drivers on the road. You are advocating for a public communication strategy that only makes sense in some kind of rationalist fantasy world, but not…
Yes, pretty much. 400 people are electrocuted in the US every year, usually in industrial situations. Thousands of people will get shocked today. The odds of a heart problem are low enough that suggesting people should be terrified of light sockets because it may stop their heart is just fearmongering, and reduces the effectiveness of other safety-related communication. This is like California proudly proclaiming that everything causes cancer. Counterproductive.
Some tips on where to begin to learn more about nature and survive in the wild? Maybe an REI class? I'm a little embarrassed to admit that should I ever venture out into the wilderness, I would definitely not survive. I lack basic survival skills and nature would eat me alive. That being said, I always admired folks who could go camping for days (or weeks), who could cook up a warm (and edible) meal over a campfire.
- If you go hiking, take a small backpack. It should have an extra layer of clothing, some snacks, and water, at minimum.
- Never eat anything unless you are 100% certain you know what it is and it is non-toxic. Only drink from a lake or stream in an emergency, and then purify or boil the water if possible.
- Always bring a hat. Like the girl in the article, I've found myself in unexpected relentless sun.
- Wear sensible shoes. The definition of 'sensible' depends on what you're doing, but when in doubt go slightly overkill.
- Never go into nature alone. Ideally, go with a group of at least 3 people. Then if 1 person is seriously hurt, 1 person can stay with them and the last person can go for help.
- Always tell someone where you are going and when you plan to return. When you get back, tell them you're safe. For a simple weekend campout, that means telling a friend or family member. For a strenuous full-day hike, that means stopping at a ranger station before and after the hike.
- Never go off trail (both because it's easy to get lost, and because it's bad to trample mother nature).
- Always have maps - ideally paper ones. Even for a simple trail, pull out a cell phone and take a picture of the map at the trailhead.
- Bring more supplies (including food and water) than you think you need. With each trip you'll learn more about what you wish you had and what you brought but didn't use.
- Bring backups of critical things. Two flashlights, two ways to start fires, and two knives of some description (they don't have to be fancy).
- Have a realistic view of your limits (and your gear's limits). Seeing a nifty rock face doesn't mean you know how to climb it. Even if you know how, you probably don't have climbing equipment with you.
- Animals are not your friends. Research in advance what animals to expect wherever you're going, and what precautions to take. Camping in bear country is different than camping in raccoon country, for example.
- Research where you're going and pack accordingly. Is there running water? If not, plan how you will get and purify water. Are fires allowed? If not, plan how you will cook your food.
If this whole list is intimidating, just start simply and enjoy figuring things out - it can be a lot of fun as long as you come prepared (and try to over plan and over-pack at first while you learn).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the plant itself was a detail. He was likely to hurt himself one way or the other. He was cut off from civilization or help, he didn't know about relatively nearby crossings (having "ditched the map" on purpose) and he had no survival skills. He could have poisoned himself with something else, or been attacked by a wild animal, or treaded on some treacherous ground and broken a leg, all of this outside the re…
You know, I wanted to type out some sassy reply, but I keep failing to put my finger on what's romantic about it (even though I guess I "relate" to that position). I don't think it's the suicide aspect, and - maybe besides the point - personally I don't think the guy was trying to die (not anymore or less than a freeclimber). Maybe the Webster 1913 definition for "romantic" can help shed a light: > Characterized by s…
I know what "romantic" means. I don't think McCandless was a romantic; I think he was reckless. His romanticism was entirely artificial -- Krakauer's opinion that he "threw away the map" on purpose since there are no really unexplored lands anymore hints at this -- and he didn't need to live this rough life, he strived to put himself in harm's way. Someone who crosses the highway with their eyes closes is not a romantic, they are simply stupid.
And like I said in another comment, I think he completely misread Jack London and failed to learn the lesson from that writer: that wilderness is ruthless and will kill you the minute you let your guard down, or simply out of bad luck.
I think it's important to note poor planning, unawareness, and frankly stupid, naive, or ignorant decisions can make nearly any environment or activity dangerous. As an example I once got in a car with people I'd just met. After driving a few blocks one of them held a gun to my head. The driver then drove us out to the middle of nowhere... I was convinced I was going to be killed. I couldn't say how long the drive wa…
If you don't mind sharing, what was the reason to get in the car with them to drive? Were you planning to head out to an event like a hike or something that you had arranged online, but hadn't known the people ahead of?
I was visiting a college town for an away football game. This was the night before the game and some of my friends and I went out. I met these two guys at a college bar my friends and I went to. My friends were going back to our hotel but these guys (who we had all met maybe an hour before) had invited me to a party. It was still fairly early and I thought "Neat, this will be a different and interesting experience". Unfortunately it was - much more than I had imagined.
It's likely that if the circumstances were closer to what you've described the police would have taken me more seriously.
I should also probably add that this was in a period of my life where I was unknowingly experiencing untreated bipolar disorder. If you're not familiar with manic or even hypomanic episodes your risk assessment can be very warped. That was a large component of this situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>operate on PDL because they never learned about risk in general Yup, humans are generally awful at understanding and managing risk, and it is in no small part because there is almost anti-training about risk outside of high-risk activities, and even some of those are very low on guidance and high on PDL. >> I still wouldn't feel bad - that's the way they chose to live thier life. True, 'tho I feel like it is my bet…
>Yup, humans are generally awful at understanding and managing risk, Normal humans are normal at understanding and managing risk because normal is defined by typical human behavior. It is your expectations that deviate from the norm. (the above applies to pretty much all "people suck" type gripes)
While I've been very fortunate to have been able to pursue and get training in a variety of activities considered high-risk, I'm amazed at how often it applies to ordinary situations. Plus, an awful lot of ordinary life is much higher-risk than people think.
We don't need extensive experience in sports or motorsports to understand that the difference between wearing a helmet or not in even a stupid little fall where your head hits something hard is the difference between "damn, I scratched my helmet" and your family organizing your funeral. This applies to everyone, and yet it is only this generation that is normalizing wearing helmets on bicycles, etc., and people still vociferously fight motorcycle helmet laws despite mountains of statistics of higher severe injury and death rates among non-helmeted motorcyclists vs. people who wear gear.
While it is ordinary for most people to not only not understand epidemiology and statistics, a significant portion also willfully ignore the advice of those who do. Just because this significant portion exists, should we no longer expect people to either understand something or at least respect those who do?
Most particularly, humans are obviously capable of understanding the difference between getting away with relying on Pure Dumb Luck vs applying knowledge, skill, technology, and attention to managing risk.
Yet, just as obviously, MOST people haven't got a clue and consistently engage in foolish risks, and get injured or dead as a result, whether we're talking about YouTube idiots, people going to COVID parties, or in massive drinking binges, and nevermind understanding anything about engineering risk building bridges, aircraft, or whatever.
It seems an obvious line to draw at understanding risk between using skill/knowledge/tech/attention vs using Pure Dumb Luck that the latter suck at risk management, and objectively most people are in the latter group. Moreover, I'd say more people are in this latter group, and the consequences are more serious, than in other fields, such as saying "most people suck at proper grammar".
What am I missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, risk can be fun. But everyone I encountered in risk sports knew the difference between "smart crazy" vs "dumb crazy". It is the difference between using knowledge, skill, technology, and mental focus to reduce risk to manageable levels, vs "getting away with it". Getting away with it, riding on PDL — Pure Dumb Luck — can work for a long time. Until it doesn't, and you're dead. Like those YouTube idiots in the ar…
Thank you for this. Calculating risks and knowing when to turn back is what keeps my wingsuiting squirrel of a childhood best friend alive to this day, after more than 2000 flights.
One time, I was driving at night in the Sierra after a storm - roads were covered in snow. It's a drive I've made close to 100 times without incident. Going around a bend, I saw a car in the ditch on the outside of the curve. I stopped the car, put on the hazards, and went to see if there was anyone in the car. As I was about to cross the highway a car come sliding around the bend more or less sideways. I stopped and…
The immediate answer might be turn of the circuit breaker, but what if we're in a giant office building? Or I don't have access or know where the circuit breaker is?
Grab them with rubber gloves?