Solo climber loses life in Yosemite N. P.

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.