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.