Ethics of risking serious injury or death for easily preventable accidents when you have friends/family that care about you?

"If a work of art is rich and vital and complete, those who have artistic instincts will see its beauty, and those to whom ethics appeal more strongly than aesthetics will see its moral lesson. It will fill the cowardly with terror, and the unclean will see in it their own shame."
Oscar Wilde

Hmm....

No Art is worth dying for just like no climb is worth dying for. Causes that truly serve the greater good: Science, Medicine, war against the truly Evil (WW2 qualifies, mostly) etc.

Stop. Period. End.

Boondoggle shame.

Not so much.

When you have served that greater good you see climbing for what it is. A tremendous Sport, maybe the greatest, but filled with first world problems that serves very few outside those doing it for their simple pleasure.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:
Its a fucking sketchy ass dice roll that he rationalizes like any other damn fool. That's why his own team couldn't even watch.

Oh, he might be playing dice, but he knows the odds better than you or anyone else relative to his chances- i.e. it's a highly calculated risk he wouldn't take if he considered it a matter of random luck.

Honnold is actually taking less risk than the average climber. The reason is that he prepares thoroughly for his solos and knows for a fact that he won't be falling. He controls variables with the utmost care, that's why he's so nonchalant about it and probably wonders why people are always asking the same silly question, "How can you justify the risk?". If you are asking this question of Honnold you simply don't understand the nature of risk.

Climbing is meaningless yet most of our lives revolve around it. Whether you want to knit beanies with your free time or solo blank walls with your free time it's your decision. Freedom ain't free.  

Now how about all those crazy as hell road bikers? I'd rather solo at my limit than get run over by some texting moron.

Tradiban wrote: Honnold is actually taking less risk than the average climber. The reason is that he prepares thoroughly for his solos and knows for a fact that he won't be falling. He controls variables with the utmost care, that's why he's so nonchalant about it and probably wonders why people are always asking the same silly question, "How can you justify the risk?". If you are asking this question of Honnold you simply don't understand the nature of risk.

If he really thought that than he is dumber than we all think.

ViperScale . wrote:

If he really thought that than he is dumber than we all think.

You're just not as good at climbing at he is. Alex operates with a high intellectual percision and it obviously pays off. You can talk shit if he dies while soloing, until then you're just another jealous hater.

I feel like all the X-rated climbs out there should stay X-rated even though 99% of climbers would say "no way" and that's exactly why.  Taking that risk is another factor making it a unique climb that could keep people away.  What if bachar-yerian was retrobolted?  Even a climb like Lickety splits at J-tree has R-rated character and adding a couple bolts would destroy that.  As a father myself, I try to only take appropriate risks where I feel confident and if a sweet route needs another bolt for me to feel good about it, then I just stay away instead of think of changing the nature of the route.  IMO, that's what makes climbing so rewarding / humbling. 

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote: Not so much.

When you have served that greater good you see climbing for what it is. A tremendous Sport, maybe the greatest, but filled with first world problems that serves very few outside those doing it for their simple pleasure.

Pretty sure you’re preaching to the choir. I’ve never known a climber that views climbing rocks as something significant to humanity.

Tradiban wrote:

You're just not as good at climbing at he is. Alex operates with a high intellectual precision and it obviously pays off. You can talk shit if he dies while soloing, until then you're just another jealous hater.

Personally I'd rather assume that Honnold isn't as in control as he thinks he is.  That way i'll continue to be amazed by his new ascents, and if/when he does have an accident I won't have to re-asses my own assumptions about how much control I have of my own climbing.  Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for the guy and I hope he lives a long and full life, but I am cautiously optimistic.  I'm not a jealous hater at all.  Being skeptical is not the same thing as hating.  

The attitude that Honnold is somehow different than all of the other free soloists who met their tragic end, and that he is more aware and controlled than any of us can even imagine is a dangerous one.  It's dangerous because it is contagious.  I can't fault Honnold for being honest in interviews, but personally I wish he would be more callous about his odds in interviews.  Does he really want his followers to have a reduced perception of the danger of free soloing?

Tradiban, suppose Honnold did have children.  Would you want him to continue his free soloing pursuits.  If not, then that tells me that you aren't as confident about his odds as you proclaim.

Briggs Lazalde wrote:

I'm surprised Dontchuffonme didn't correct "your" for "you're" given his only comments generally target grammar and punctuation.

Chuff didn’t catch the op either.  Must be slacking off. 

Tradiban wrote: Honnold is actually taking less risk than the average climber. The reason is that he prepares thoroughly for his solos and knows for a fact that he won't be falling. He controls variables with the utmost care, that's why he's so nonchalant about it and probably wonders why people are always asking the same silly question, "How can you justify the risk?". If you are asking this question of Honnold you simply don't understand the nature of risk.

Tell it to John Bachar or Derek Hersey or Quinn Brett (paralyzed) or Jason Wells or Tim Klein or Tommy (survived 100' fall unscathed during speed ascent).

If Alex continues, its only a matter of time.

Its not the same as driving a car because these aren't "fender benders" but have real consequences.

Tradiban, suppose Honnold did have children.  Would you want him to continue his free soloing pursuits.  If not, then that tells me that you aren't as confident about his odds as you proclaim.

Yes, I would because he's not taking much of a "risk". Lol, I know the movie narrative has really rattled some cages, especially with the crying GF and all, but that narrative was manufactured on purpose for.....(gasp) DRAMA!

Frankly, I see a dozen noobs evey weekend that scare me more than anything H does. He's so good you can't even believe it, eh?

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

Tell it to John Bachar or Derek Hersey or Quinn Brett (paralyzed) or Jason Wells or Tim Klein or Tommy (survived 100' fall unscathed during speed ascent).

If Alex continues, its only a matter of time.

Its not the same as driving a car because these aren't "fender benders" but have real consequences.

Meh, there's many climbers who died doing seemly innocuous things. So maybe you're next?!?!?!

Tim Lutz wrote:

That's a big assumption.  People close to Alex like his mother and GF have come to some sort of understanding and support of his drive to solo.  

Of course they would have mixed emotions if he fell, but doubt they would completely dismiss his endeavors as 'not worth it'.

Dean Potter's people knew his 'dark arts'.  Do you really think if they could go back in time they would beg him to never put on a wingsuit?

Dean Potter would cease to be Dean Potter if he felt the need to muzzle his instinct to play (very) close to edge.

Spoken just like the enabler of any Addict.

"Jimi Hendrix/Janis Joplin/Amy Winehouse knew their 'dark arts'...."

This idea that people need to play "close to the edge" to "be themselves" is not founded in reality but more based in addiction and the denial mechanisms of enablers. In fact, Potter, Osman, Ammon needed interventions. Ammon survived, maybe he got the hint though it is doubtful his enablers did.

Tradiban wrote:

Meh, there's many climbers who died doing seemly innocuous things. So maybe you're next?!?!?!

Well, that's a nice thing to say....

Yes, lots of climbers die doing innocuous things. Free soloing El Cap ain't innocuous nor is proximity wing suiting or doing idiotic things like jumping off Leaning Tower tied to a rope "for fun".

No one is saying free soloing is without risk or that Alex free solos without risk. What I'm personally saying is Alex is probably safer and managing less risk than your average [trad] climber on a rope. And when you look at what risk we're talking about, in his case it's like 98-99% subjective risk (him fucking up) and 1-2% objective risk (rockfall, hold breaking, rain, etc). He knows his capabilities and clearly manages risk better than any climber alive. Does that mean he'll never fuckup and die? No. But it means on any given day I'd probably wager you're more likely to fuckup and die with a rope than Alex is without one.

Healyje wrote: No one is saying free soloing is without risk or that Alex free solos without risk. What I'm personally saying is Alex is probably safer and managing less risk than your average [trad] climber on a rope. And when you look at what risk we're talking about, in his case it's like 98-99% subjective risk (him fucking up) and 1-2% objective risk (rockfall, hold breaking, rain, etc). He knows his capabilities and clearly manages risk better than any climber alive. Does that mean he'll never fuckup and die? No. But it means on any given day I'd probably wager you're more likely to fuckup and die with a rope than Alex is without one.

No, Alex clearly manages his fear of the consequences of falling as well or better than any climber alive.

We have no evidence that he manages the actual likelihood of falling better than anyone else, because he clearly falls off rock climbs like anyone else, just not when he is un-roped.

The two are not the same.

What we know is that Alex prudently rehearses the moves many times while roped up to reduce the chance of physical failure and condition his mind to the fear, but that doesn't account for a shoe popping off a tiny edge. There is a random factor there that no one can account.

I want to go on record saying that what Alex does is Art. Great Human Art, and perhaps the greatest single piece of performance art we will ever see for the foreseeable future and the greatest done by a human artist/athlete so far, imo.

But its not worth dying to make this kind of art.

Dying in the service of others or the key advancement of the human condition is worth it. This doesn't qualify, imo.

VVVVVVVVV And what do you base that on other than being an Enabler Fanboi in denial? I can fall a thousand times with a rope on and be fine. A free-soloist falls once and its over. You have to be in denial to believe that we have different exposures to random events.

I don't know if this is true but posted in another thread: "When Tommy and Alex were taking some runs on it, Tommy fell off the boulder problem. It's "only V7", yet one of the most talented thin-granite climbers on earth popped off there. I think Alex said he popped off there when rehearsing it, and was having about a 9 out of 10 success rate".

Quite certain my risk of death is less than that.