Solo climber loses life in Yosemite N. P.

Wow, Chris. That's just nonsense.
I think you and I are quickly reaching the end of our discussion on this subject.
Wow.

That's usually the case with us.
I moderated myself and took down a deragotory picture.
Of course, that's nonsense and I was trying to show how ridiculous your argument  is that anybody knowingly risking their life to ski extreme slopes at the expense of their loved ones is immoral.
It may be semantics and you can substitute" right or wrong" instead of moral and immoral behaviour, but the word "moral" has a different meaning for most of us versus approve or disapprove.
IMO, and this is usually the case between you and I, you make a statement  that condems people who think and act differently from you and tag their decision and behaviour as immoral.
Everybody has free will, and if they want to risk their life even at the risk of creating sorrow for their loved ones, then that's their right. We can dissaprove personally and say that is not a choice we would make but to condem their decison as immoral or suggest their personal moral compass is less developed or somehow inferior ( which is what I think you do... maybe even inadvertantly) I think is wrong and the basis of many of the intewebz squabbles we end up in.
Much of the time, when responding to you, I write stuff I don;t agree with personally but try to play the devil's advocate to try and figure out why you think the way you do.
Despite what you may think, I have immense respect for you but find myself at times in disbelief over the way you see the world versus how I see it ( and vice-versa I'm sure). My discussions with you are sometimes an attempt to try and understand your point of view... sometimes I end up agreeing with you as a result... sometimes ,I don't.

when I raised the question about Mr Skoog's comments I was intrigued at the meaning behind what he wrote. Having read his reply, and the many that followed, I think that Mr Skoog brings up a very valid question worth considering. I also agree at this point that we need to move beyond defining morality and asking hypothetical questions.
The real meaning of the discussion gets lost in the process.
Firstly, Scotsman is absolutely right. The industry is simply reacting to our needs and desires in the material that they choose to push. We are the ones that revere the extreme side of the sport, and we are the ones that pay the costs, as it is our families and friends that suffer when the impending accident does occur. As cookiemonster points out, the costs are ours to pay for the most part.
As I see it, at heart of this discussion is a question of whether our tastes are in dire need of re-examination. If I understand correctly, Mr. Skoog implies that our obsession with the steeps is not a healthy one. Forget about the question of defining morality and such, and instead think about it for what its worth.
Have we as a community embraced risk too much? Have we idolized the extreme and in doing so have we lost the fulcrum of our health as a commuinty, i.e BALANCE?

The industry is simply reacting to our needs and desires in the material that they choose to push. We are the ones that revere the extreme side of the sport, and we are the ones that pay the costs, as it is our families and friends that suffer when the impending accident does occur.

I don't believe the industry and media are pushing "steep" skiing in any meaningful way. Why? it's not asthetically pleasing to watch someone make technical, slow turns over exposure in the same way it is to watch someone make big arcing turns down a face and hit a big air. I may marvel at the line, comment on it in someone's TR and maybe even desire to ski that line or something similar, for reasons that are entirely my own. The media/industries do however love the concept of "extreme" to the point that extreme is now mainstream.

Thanks Ruski for your intersting post .
My problem with what you are saying is that it goes against inherent human nature.
In the perfect world we would all turn into ESPN to watch a group of middle -aged farts running a round a track with as much enthusiasm as we watch a group of Olympic athletes complete at the highest elite level of their sport with superhuman strength developed over years of commitment. We would judge the accomplishments of the middle -aged farts as highly as the Olympians.

Human nature doesn't work that way. I'm sure even in Stone Age society, the hunter that took the most risk in hunting down the woolly mammoth was the most revered( and thereby got the most mates)  and had the most rapt audience for their exploits around the fire at night.

Trying to control  the behaviour of humans ( the moderate trying to adjust the behaviour of the elite) by setting up rules over what is acceptable and unacceptable by those that push the envelope of human achievement seems to me an attempt to put mediocracy as a higher goal than doing something extraordinary.
Sometimes those that attempt the extraordinary pay a high price as well as those that love them. So be, it it is their choice.
I personally am glad there are outliers in our sport.

That's usually the case with us.
I moderated myself and took down a deragotory picture.

Thanks Chris.

Wow.  Great discussion.

I think Scotsman's right, it's human nature to admire the feats of others.  It is equally human to rationalize that such risks are not worthwhile for ourselves, as well as to seek other paths of contribution via equally admirable yet less jaw-dropping achievements.

I think we are doing OK in the sports of climbing and skiing, where participants are interested in these sorts of discussions and where grandstanding glory-hounds and commercialization are generally rejected by the community.


I think a breakdown occurs when participants don't have a complete understanding of the risks they are taking. For example, when objectives are chosen based on recent popularity or previous success rates. Similar to assuming a slope is stable simply because 5 or 10 people have just skied it. These sorts of breakdowns are likely to occur when someone's skill and fitness levels exceed their experience level. Part of gaining experience is accidentally taking risks we would not have consciously decided to take.

I think there is also a breakdown when someone stops believing that an accident could happen to them, when 'risk creep' starts introducing itself to the equation, when simulclimbing is replaced by simul-soloing simply because you've never taken a fall while simulclimbing.. along those lines - not because you can't fall, but because you don't believe you will fall or you base your decision to solo steep snow right above your buddy on what you believe to be accepted operating procedure and not an honest assessment of your own skill level or risk threshold.  Lots of distinctions, relativity...  The ANAM pub's don't take these factors into account, they eliminate emotion from the analysis.  They are much easier to understand.  "Inadequate protection" "Failure to self-arrest" "Glissading with crampons"

One of the oddities at work is that a lot of the time we talk about style in terms of the level of commitment and risk one takes.  If you climb a route plugging gear every 5 feet so you're essentially on top rope the whole time, it says a lot about your confidence and ability level at that grade.  On the other side of the spectrum, if you point your tips and drop a mandatory air instead of sideslipping the crux and downclimbing, a statement has been made.  At least if you are successful.

As I see it, at heart of this discussion is a question of whether our tastes are in dire need of re-examination. If I understand correctly, Mr. Skoog implies that our obsession with the steeps is not a healthy one. Forget about the question of defining morality and such, and instead think about it for what its worth.
Have we as a community embraced risk too much? Have we idolized the extreme and in doing so have we lost the fulcrum of our health as a commuinty, i.e BALANCE?

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Yes, I do think balance is needed. When I look at the outdoor media, I see almost nobody questioning whether it is a good thing to bring extreme skiing into the mainstream. Instead I see almost universal cheer-leading for it. So I have decided to question it myself.

I find it interesting that references to morality make people uncomfortable. Yet there is no other way that I can explain the decisions I've made for myself. I stepped away from extreme skiing because I cannot justify it morally. It took me a long time to work through this decision. I'm speaking up about it in case it resonates with anyone else.

Regarding the outdoor media, they publish what sells. What bothers me is that many of the people "buying" don't really know what they're looking at. They don't know what goes on behind the scenes and they don't know what happens when things go wrong. The media doesn't try to show this because it wouldn't be good for sales. I find that I am less enamored with what I see in the "extreme" media than a lot of you folks seem to be.

I find it interesting that references to morality make people uncomfortable. Yet there is no other way that I can explain the decisions I've made for myself. I stepped away from extreme skiing because I cannot justify it morally. It took me a long time to work through this decision. I'm speaking up about it in case it resonates with anyone else.

Wow Lowell, you just don't get it!
Words are powerful things and semantics are important.
Morality= implies righteousness and nobilty of decision therefore immorality= unrighteous and unnoble decision= The moral person is better and more righteous than the immoral person is generally accepted in our societyas the meaning of the adjective.

You can dissaprove of a persons decison without implying you are better than them but  when morality is substituted the implication you are better is  also added IMO.

Edit to add: I just thought: Maybe you ARE chosing your words carefully and the implicaton you are trying to convey is just that.???mmmmmmmmh!

Anyone ever thought on the relative danger AND attraction of free soloing vs. skiing steep, exposed faces? 

I "heart" Scotsman for thinking outside of the box and letting in many different points of view to form his replies...It amazes me that Lowell was able to sway the original question to such a degree. The "relative danger and attraction" take into account the personal experiences of each PERSON. No "society","media", or other bullshit is included in such a question, and never will be.

Another missed response to the original question...

I'll leave it to telemack to decide whether the discussion of his question has been worthwhile. Here's an article by Lito Tejada-Flores that I find worthwhile: Alpinism As Humanism: Second Thoughts on Climbing Games

Quote: "Many, maybe most of the choices climbers make (and certainly their most important choices) don't concern rock and ice and holds and dynamic moves and rope management and protection; they concern other people."

I'll leave it to telemack to decide whether the discussion of his question has been worthwhile. Here's an article by Lito Tejada-Flores that I find worthwhile: Alpinism As Humanism: Second Thoughts on Climbing Games

Quote: "Many, maybe most of the choices climbers make (and certainly their most important choices) don't concern rock and ice and holds and dynamic moves and rope management and protection; they concern other people."

You bemoan the marketing and glamorization of extreme sports and say any person consciously risking their life is immoral.
At the same time you edit , promote and publish the NWMJ that contains content such as this.
From NWMJ vol2

Fear is an emotion every climber has to deal with in some way or another. Some let it consume them, others push it into a dark corner of their mind, and still others claim to have purged it from their souls altogether (I’m always skeptical of those people). The way fear is dealt with can directly affect what becomes of a given situation, and I intensely wanted this situation to resolve in my favor. My eyes closed, I felt around in my mind and gathered up the pieces and squeezed them into a lump. I held out the lump and looked at it from various angles. I opened my eyes and felt the gravity of the situation, the feeling of epinephrine, the incremental passage of time, each trembling breath of air, the thoughts about what might happen if I failed — all of it was funneling into that lump. I thought, “This is fear. It’s only a lump. I’m holding it in front of me. I can do what I want with it”. It freed me from my confinement, allowing my mind and body to solve the puzzle. I found the missing piece of the sequence. I had to stem my foot way left out onto a small protrusion on the overhanging formation on my left, which gave me the stability I needed to get my weight onto my right foot. I reached up and grabbed the dike above the roof, which was thankfully positive, and kept moving another 20 feet through slightly easier terrain before I finally got to a crack that would accept gear.

Does anybody see any problem with this , at least to me, hypocritical position.
OH that's right you are just a historian so therefore exempt from criticism.

if anyone is to blame for thread stealing, i would have to be the culprit here. Mr Skoog simply added that in his opinion both of these opinions represent a moral breakdown.
from there i asked why? and stated my case, which is that i dont think this is a moral question necessarily. personally i think this is a great thread!
the question of community is very pertinent. especially on a site which creates and adds meaning (via communication) to the community of ski crazies
irregardless...I can appreciate what u have to say toby t. The relativism argument is certainly valid....
scotsman, per your earlier post

"Human nature doesn't work that way. I'm sure even in Stone Age society, the hunter that took the most risk in hunting down the woolly mammoth was the most revered( and thereby got the most mates)  and had the most rapt audience for their exploits around the fire at night.

Trying to control  the behaviour of humans ( the moderate trying to adjust the behaviour of the elite) by setting up rules over what is acceptable and unacceptable by those that push the envelope of human achievement seems to me an attempt to put mediocracy as a higher goal than doing something extraordinary."

I agree with you that human nature does reward the risk-taker, and that to the victor go the spoils. Im not sure that chicks dig not knowing whether youre coming home after every ski trip. Stability, im told, is so in right now.

I think it is telling that you used the Stone Age as  a part of your argument. One of the beauties of societal evolution is that we can go beyond our natural drive to "do one better"  and kill the biggest mammoth, and consider larger, more meaningful questions. For example, "if everyone killed the biggest mammoths, would that be good for us in the long run?"  The capitalism of Adam Smith, unfortunately does not account for many of our current problems. The problem with bigger is better is that its not sustainable. And as such is not responsible. And as such....maybe even immoral? Societies police their own attitudes without end. Why cant we, a small society, do the same?
im really undecided as to whether we should or not (change our attitude towards extreme skiing) but I do think that we can.
so dammit scotsman, i want my individual power back!!!!

Unfortunately Ruski, according to this latest science, you can't have your individual power back, free will may not exist and we are forever, in the long run, no matter how we rationalize subject to our Darwinian responses.

See opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/25...20free%20will&st=cse

But I understand your point:
The tribe is sitting around the fire listening to YUgga's story of killing the wooly mammoth. Emo says" but what about Nigel???... he walked for miles and found some plant you can eat." Tribe doesn't want to listen to Nigel's proto-grain gathering story. Nigel's discovery revolutionizes tribe and they live better and it creates the process that allows them to become a more advanced society.
Generations later... the tribe gathers around the hearth, bellies full from bread and ask the elder's to tell them story of YUgga's great mammoth hunt.

hahaha, i love it!!! My fellow atheist, you underestimate our own power! also, I've given up sex for powder before. darwin be dammed!!!
dont worry scotsman, i dont think evolution is a theory, it is a fact, even in texas That being said, public discourse can influence societal opinion. u gotta give me that?
and if so, this discourse can too?
and lastly, have you ever thought of becoming a therapist? for the overly happy?

amen scotsman. we do need a little more passion in our lives. no argument here. get after it then, be safe.

Scotsman, I've learned that it is pointless to debate with you in this forum. So, I'm not going to address any of your misrepresentations of my views. I'll just ask that people read what I actually wrote, instead of what you say I believe. Have a nice day.

Some people, like my in-laws, argue for sport.

This is like the Jerry Springer Show for dem wid faux civility and high IQ's.

I think, Scotsman and Lowell, that you two are just not meant to have a good discussion in this format. As much as you've tried in the past, it just doesn't work well.

^^^^^
Have you guys ever met or skied together? Good times?

^^^^^
Have you guys ever met or skied together?  Good times?

As a matter of fact, we have met several times. The first time was during the June 2008 Union Creek avalanche search, which Chris organized. I have great respect for his efforts in organizing that search. Several lasting friendships began that day.

www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboardi...hp?topic=10307.0;all

It has been my experience that Scotty does not allow friendship to get in the way of his seemingly obsessive and never ending pursuit of the devil's advocate role.
Entertainment value? William Wallace bloodlines? Too much idle time on his hands? Who knows? Scotty may not even know for sure.
Despite this somewhat socially obnoxious character trait we still value him as a friend (But don’t tell him I said that ).
For now I pray that Christina Chan’s friends and loved ones view this massive thread drift as constructive and thought provoking to those of us with similar challenges of those which Christina faced and that they further understand that it was in no way meant to disrespect her love for her sport or the decisions that she made.
I believe all here still offer heartfelt condolences for her loss.

I started this F Y I piece,as I think the more we know, the more we have to draw from. I think I saw it from one of Lowell's reports, mentioning Arne Backstrom was skiing a 50 - 55 degree face/ chute in Peru this past June, and lost his life. I was shocked (again). We know the addages of if you fall, you die; hike what you ski. And I've already read from Lowell's replies before that he is not interested in these type of situations. Nor am I.
I really like the whole way Avalanche precautions is setup. For me, some of the key pts with avalanche terms are terrain traps; and low angle skiing during periods of Considerable - High danger. We alone make the choices.
I also saw in the 2007 Ski mountaineering book (based in Seattle), that when you are in a group, decision-making can get sort of passed from one to the next, maybe resulting in a 'poor call'. Pierre Tardivel (France) has waited 10 years to ski a line. Rob M. (Reno/ Tahoe)

It has been my experience that Scotty does not allow friendship to get in the way of his seemingly obsessive and never ending pursuit of the devil's advocate role.
Entertainment value? William Wallace bloodlines? Too much idle time on his hands? Who knows? Scotty may not even know for sure.
Despite this somewhat socially obnoxious character trait we still value him as a friend (But don’t tell him I said that ).
For now I pray that Christina Chan’s friends and loved ones view this massive thread drift as constructive and thought provoking to those of us with similar challenges of those which Christina faced and that they further understand that it was in no way meant to disrespect her love for her sport or the decisions that she made.
I believe all here still offer heartfelt condolences for her loss.

Whatever. I have no need for apologists.
Friendships are transient and the reasons for them mainly self -centered and egotistical and the truth more important.

Whatever. I have no need for apologists.
Friendships are transient and the reasons for them mainly self -centered and egotistical and the truth more important.

WOW !!

Friendships are transient and the reasons for them mainly self -centered and egotistical and the truth more important.

Maybe the transience is due to intransigence?
The quest for truth is a lonely endeavor.

Any poems to add, Telemack?

...The quest for truth is a lonely endeavor.

Any poems to add, Telemack?

He may have already WRITTEN IT .

I've thought long and hard on this topic myself over the years, having done a lot of free solo climbing BITD, and a bit of extreme skiing later. In the end I've come down on Lowell's side of the morality argument - for myself the self-centered risk taking in pursuit of my zen high wasn't justified after I got married (I felt guilty afterward when I thought of the consequences), and it would have become even more of a moral issue if I had kids. But what if a father has a high risk job, is it moral then to provide for his family? Alex Lowe and Doug Combs come to mind (of course both of them could have made a living just back from the edge).

Another aspect of modern ski porn that I'd like to know is how many 100 ft. huckers are still skiing/climbing/etc. into their 50s? It would be interesting to hear from older guys to see if they now think it was worth it. I've always thought american football was the most immoral activity in our society in this way - how many high school atheletes sacrifice their bodies for fleeting glory, and give up a life time of sports enjoyment? (all with the support and encouragement of Mom/Pop/Teachers/Etc.) Of course the stats on those going pro are horrible, crippling pain/medication addiction and early death.

I do think some risk is worth the rewards, and if you go out in the mountains a lot it will become extreme at times even if you don't seek it out or even realize it (third classing across an exposed easy gully where a random rock would send you tumbling). The tight rope we tread of how much is too much is different for every person depending on skill and physical capabilities.