Another death on trail to 'Magic Bus' from Into The Wild won't stop adventurers
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
So this seems particularly dumb if thats the inspiration
For the book's author, Jon Krakauer, the story is a personal one because he himself did stuff just as dangerous when he was younger. He tells a story of solo ice climbing when he almost died. I think Krakauer is fascinated by McCandless because he could have ended up the same way, and he's grateful that he didn't. Krakauer lived and adjusted to being an adult in our society. He grew up. That's what I find tragic about McCandless and the people idolizing him, and dying trying to follow his footsteps. I think that if McCandless had lived, he would have eventually adjusted to society as well.
If you have an economic perspective for the hero, yes, most of the time heroic is dumb (standing up for what's right to your own economic detriment, fighting a patent troll in court, risking your life for a stranger, etc). But being heroic is not about economics. It's almost precisely the point.
Generally speaking, heroic is not dumb, but almost always requires a lot of risk. We consider people heros or heroines because they take on risk to do the right thing, which is often the thing the masses are unwilling to attempt and/or unable to accomplish.
It certainly helps to accomplish, but most people will consider heroic acts those that take on a lot of risk to do the right thing despite the outcome.
The lesson: its a good idea, but don’t run in unprepared, and don’t think nature is without danger
The apparent takenaway: it’s a good idea
But regardless the movie depicts it as a fairly slow, very painful, and a fairly pathetic death (alone, weak, with lots of regret and little to show for it), but still 90% of the movie was him running around in gorgeous nature shots and small towns.
Give helicopter tours to rich people and exploit the irony of wanting to explore the isolation and wilderness, yet do the same as everyone else.
No, don't. Providing the most polluting form of transport to somewhere isolated and tranquil for profit, to allow the rich and lazy to get there in a day trip is disgusting. But hey they are rich, let them ruin it for others who made an effort to get there. The rich are what we should all aspire to as the ultimate form of success and happiness, right?
I find the constant hustle to find an angle to monetise something quite sad. Especially when aimed solely at the rich to the detriment of everyone else.
Why does everything need to be exploited? Sanitised? Made safe. You undertake something dangerous, then death is a possibility that is understood. Just accept it.
Strangely, destroying the desirability by offering helicopter rides in the short term may save it as a destination for the truly intrepid in the future.
You dont live in an isolated bubble. You will call for help if lost or injured and it will be up to others to either take on the grueling task of mounting a rescue in such conditions or leaving you for dead while you beg for help on the radio. In reality they will have no choice but to put them self in danger to rescue an adventure tourist. With the given example of the magic bus its volunteer firefights who have to rescue these tourists.
I dont really see a difference to Everest tourism, where people push beyond their limits to reach the top hoping that someone will get them down again. And then there is an outcry when they cant be helped, like the media spectacle around David Sharp. He went up there without oxygen and people saw him dying right on the track unable to get him down.
If you value your life so little its your choice, but please consider what that does to people who have to leave you begging or getting them to gamble their own life to save you.
Glorifying this sort of behavior is completely irresponsible.
edit: Did you reflect about how some people might take your posts here as a motivation for a grand adventure? Not thinking about it to much and just breaking out of the daily grind and experiencing the magic bus?
edit2: I mean this is really beyond me, if anyone is actually thinking about doing something like this, think for one moment what you would tell the family of a rescuer who might die trying to save you from your own stupidity. That you are sorry?
I can understand being against the pollution, but aside from that, how can what the "rich and lazy" do bother you in any way? People harming the environment should bother you equally whether they're rich or poor, lazy or industrious.
You realize you're on Hacker News, right?
There's nothing wrong with it. On the surface, what if someone has a passion which is unprofitable? Becoming rich is the way, and motivation to be able to practice it. And going deeper: having 'a passion' doesn't necessary make anyone a better person vs someone who just wants to give his/her kids a better start, and spend the last part of life being able to pay medical bills.
Also, if you want something safe, you can pay for it. If you don’t want to pay, accept the consequences. Nothing wrong with giving people choices.
Why stop it? Just make sure the dangers are known, and if people still die trying to get to it, then that's their own dumb fault. Why try to take something away from the people that know what they're getting into and want to do it anyway?
No one ever visits it.
What if phones were loaded with some basic geometry layers, so when your phone's GPS detects you're outside the polygon, it forcibly alerts you: YOU ARE OUTSIDE THE RANGE FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES. 911 AND EMERGENCY RESCUE NOT GUARANTEED."
I got thinking about this also because of how emergency services are often perceived as being some universal guarantee, taken for granted in the modern world. I wonder if people don't really grok that they're completely outside of the safety net they grew up in.
As a local told me, these are “Alaskan storage containers”. There’s a small museum in Wasilla that has restored some of the abandoned vehicles of historic interest going back to the earliest made vehicles and planes.
Oh and a duct tape moose!
A reporter who can’t figure out why people keep going to the bus sure had an easy time justifying why they themself went.
But to any other would-be followers, imagine completing your "wilderness" pilgrimage, only to find a couple of other groups already camping there.
McCandless had some idiotic notion that the map would degrade the purity of his experience of nature, or something like that, so he refused.
How ridiculous that someone who was a fan of the book would die trying to ford the same river at the same place that stopped McCandless. Did they not read that part of the book where Krakauer decribed the cable, or did they just not remember it?
Of course 2 trends are against it: the tribals who believe they are more legit than others to do the trek for some reason (like the hunters or locals), and the economists who believe taxes should pay for the army, not for rescuing citizen who had an accident, and that normal citizens who want to do that should pay an army of guides and sherpas who will iron out any issue. I don't subscribe to any of it, tribalism is a license to be an asshole, and guides tend to be only nice to wealthy clients.
>It's primarily volunteer firefighters that execute these rescues. And there have been numerous rescues.
Getting yourself knowingly in that danger, relying on people having to rescue you if it doesnt pan out seems rather shitty to me.
There are other ways to grow, that don't put others in danger, so I personally see this as something quite stupid.
Same with hiking in remote places, it's a bit more dangerous, but still most of the time you don't die (I'd venture to argue that the average number of death per person is only one), so the averaged risk is quite low still, but every time you slip on a rock, cross a sketchy river, etc. You gain experience that will further reduce the risk.
I agree - don't think making it illegal would help though (e.g. requiring an "outdoors license").
If, on the other hand, you take risks you are not equipped to handle and judge due a lack of skill and ability and you need than first responders you are acting irresponsible. You might also end up in much more dangerous situations then the above mentioned group of people again increasing risk for first responders. You always hear about people unable to judge risks in the Alps.
I have seen mountaineering guides going solo in ice climbing higher than their clients, going in the mountains in sneakers (which I'm not sure is stupid in the circumstances, but imagine a news article describing a dead tourist with sneakers on their feet).
And you can be criticized in many ways: calling for help to early (that was not very dangerous), too late (you didn't recognize the subtle beginning of a crisis and you let it unfold), too much, not enough. It's all about the identity of the dead and the "angle" journalists will have chosen.
And journalists usually get it wrong anyway because they cannot judge the risks themselves properly. And those few that do, locals or not doesn't matter, write different articles.
And just by the way. Assuming all locals have experience in their wilds is such a fallacy. Generally speaking the average level of knowledge might be higher, on an individual level you will always have your locals, e.g. the Alps, who are unable to climb, judge avalanche risks or even just zhe weather.
Are you stating that no experience can be had without risk and/or surviving a crisis? I am troubled, wondering if some of the experiences I have had have indeed not been experiences at all.
>>And you take risks because you know people will help you if something bad happens.
That seems patently absurd, plenty of seasoned people take risks knowing that that no one will bail them out, and they will need to rely solely on their own resources.