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

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#71

Post by rurp »

tomxor wrote: post #26
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…

> Personally it would not sit well with my morals to risk my life in such a way over a completely optional, self-serving activity given the emotional and material cost my death would bring to the people who care about me. "Personal" is indeed the key word, and people usually bring up the subject of family and loved ones... These are my thoughts on that: Our lives are finite, crossing the road incurs a certain level o…

I totally agree with this. Risk isn't a dirty word that should be avoided at all costs, it's just one aspect among many that has to be factored in to a decision. Soloing never clicked for me but I know a few people who love it and get a tremendous amount out of it; I would never presume to tell them they are wrong because I personally would do something different.

Years ago a friend of mine took a massive fall free soloing. He survived but was badly injured. I couldn't believe how many lectures he got from people who barely knew him, telling him how irresponsible he was. This is a guy who is a climbing fanatic, who had already had more amazing life experiences in his early 20s than most people do in their entire life.

It took a few years, but my friend eventually healed up enough to get back to serious climbing and has been back at it ever since. Would his life be better if he spent it all grinding out a safe but boring office job like most of his critics? I don't think so, but apparently many people disagree.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#72

Post by Fricken »

justinator wrote: post #47
Fricken wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything goes for speed ascents of The Nose, so long as you do it fast. There are aid sections, it's not entirely free. Alex Honnold has not freed the nose with or without a rope. His nose speed record partner, Tommy Caldwell, is one of only a handful of people who have. Lynn Hill's first free ascent of The Nose was a monumental achievement, for a woman or a man. It's confusing because The Nose describes both the fea…

Alex Honnold has not freed the nose with or without a rope That's why I said, "in a comparable style". The FA was done on aid, as was Alex's speed ascent with Tommy. But not completely comparable. The FA had to establish anchors, drill in bolts, figure out the route. More standing on the shoulders of giants, than anything I think. Then, it's just optimization. Honnold's Free Solo of the Nose was on a route called Fre…

I concede, I was confused.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#73

Post by apathy »

ip26 wrote: post #54
cardiffspaceman wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Yosemite Mountaineering School classes went out to the rock they used nylon ropes, in 1975. I was never more than a student of climbing but everything that has been mentioned in this thread was being done, and written up in books you could buy at Kelty, in the mid 70's. Dawn Wall was climbed with 300 bolts on its first ascent (but bolt usage was ahead of its time). The 'harness' is the main refinement I would sa…

I doubt cams were advertised in '75. Friends were created in '78.

Greg Lowe’s cams predated friends by about 3-4 years

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#74

Post by manfredo »

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…

Pre-modern climbers were likely much worse, for a variety of factors. First of all, in agrarian societies only a small segment of the population (mostly nobles) had any significant amounts of free time to pursue activities unrelated to food production. So the population of climbers was much smaller. On top of that, nutrition in general was a lot worse. Most of the population lived on diets just enough to survive. And lastly, literacy and information transfer was highly limited so climbers would not be able to teach each other their techniques as effectively and couldn't google the best climbing places.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#75

Post by landryraccoon »

manfredo wrote: post #74
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…

Pre-modern climbers were likely much worse, for a variety of factors. First of all, in agrarian societies only a small segment of the population (mostly nobles) had any significant amounts of free time to pursue activities unrelated to food production. So the population of climbers was much smaller. On top of that, nutrition in general was a lot worse. Most of the population lived on diets just enough to survive. And…

Pre modern climbers wouldn’t have been climbing for recreation, but for survival. For example these guys are definitely not nobles with too much time on their hands:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/honey-hu...

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#76

Post by Fricken »

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…

I was looking for the source, I can't find it, but there was a (I think 17th century) French monk was into climbing, and based on his diary entries and the local crags near the monastery they guessed he was pulling 5.13a, which, for climbers today usually it takes several years of dedicated training to get to that level.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#77

Post by cookingoils »

I would have named this article, “Free Solo Market Cap”.

Also disappointing read. What about comparing climbers to day traders or investors that take economic risks that often have very real consequences in other people’s lives.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#78

Post by aeorgnoieang »

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.

> I don’t really care what the grade was on a climb if it kills me.

You shouldn't climb at all then. People die just scrambling too. Even hiking can be dangerous.

Do you wear a helmet when you drive a car? That might actually be sensible. It's probably just too 'weird' for almost anyone to seriously consider.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#79

Post by mtnGoat »

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.

this makes perfect sense to me...

there really aren't many that have died, maybe a couple dozen, so not much stat to draw info from. BUT they aren't always on the hardest routes, so the law of averages would dictate that they die on "average" difficulty routes.

Re: Free Solo and Economic Growth

#80

Post by mtnGoat »

QuotedForTruth wrote: post #18
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…

Really? You'd be comfortable whipping in a swiss seat tied to a hemp rope (not dynamic) and stopped by a body belay? I don't think so. A clean fall onto a static rope can kill you from the sudden stop alone. There is a reason the mantra used to be "the leader must not fall" and its not because those guys were just scared. Sure 30 to 40 years ago (1980-1990) the equipment was good, and thats about when the explosion i…

what type of whippers are you taking? if you are setting your protection closely enough and your belayer is not leaving lots of slack, you shouldn't be falling far enough on a static rope to kill you.
Post reply on HN