Hacker News Reader

Comment by tech-historian | Hacker News Reader

> Fenn was also sued in Dec 2019

No good deed goes unpunished.

While I quite like the spirit of it and think people take their own risks, I don't think it's entirely obvious that it was in fact a good deed.

Consider a more overt variation: declare a prize for an open-entry no-rules fighting tournament. Nobody's been forced to participate, but encouraging people to engage in a dangerous activity is at least morally dubious to my mind.

Hiking in the wilderness is recreational and fun and not inherently dangerous.

After five people die, an argument that there's no inherent danger rings a bit hollow.

People die from drinking too much water in water drinking competitions.

A water drinking competition seems inherently dangerous and unwise for exactly that reason. Most people who are not medical professionals will not realise that water is harmful in large amounts.

The analogy to this is that encouraging people to go out into the wilderness in search of treasure is going to encourage people to exceed what their comfort zone would be if there's no reward.

Hiking in remote parts of the southwest is an activity encouraged by all manner of government and private entities with a vested interest in the tourism industry. It's simply not an issue. People are still expected to be responsible for their own well being and it's still ok to advertise and promote things that have nonzero amounts of risk associated with them (like beer).

>treasure is going to encourage people to exceed what their comfort zone would be if there's no reward.

Any more than taking dumb selfies for "the "gram" encourages them to exceed their comfort zone?

Hiking in the woods is extremely dangerous if you have no map or navigation skills.

Anyway, these people were searching for hidden treasure, not "hiking". They were led to imagine that leaving the safety of a trail made them more likely to get rich.

You can get injured or killed if you are foolish or unlucky. The term "inherently dangerous" is generally reserved for those situations where even a skilled and knowledgable person is facing a significant risk; the term would be meaningless if expanded in the way you are trying here.

The only way in which hiking is "inherently dangerous" is if you equate that term to include "situations in which I may have to depend solely upon myself."

In an objective appraisal of risk, actual danger is negligible with: (1) water, (2) compass, (3) mylar blanket, (4) rudimentary knowledge of surrounding topography, roads, and settled areas, (5) first aid kit equipped to stop blood loss, & (6) bear spray.

I’m not a hiker, but I miss (0) telling people where you’re going and when you expect to report back.

Without it, even a sprained ankle can be deadly.

Skilled hikers do die all of the time.

Here's a random example from the top of my head.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&obje...

tl;dr woman who had walked the Appalachian trail multiple times leaves the trail to pee, never finds her way back to the trail.

I'm pretty sure that's covered by 'unlucky': it's not the sort of thing that should give any reasonably prepared hiker cause for considering abandoning the practice as too risky. And 'all the time' is a considerable exaggeration when we consider how many times people set off on a hike in any given year.

Some hiking trails are inherently dangerous for those ill-prepared. The Grand Escalante Staircase in Utah comes to mind. There is no cell signal and water sources are scarce. Beautiful slot canyon hiking and loads of fun, but it does carry an element of risk.

Going out into wilderness is encouraging a dangerous behavior comparable with no-rules fighting? It ain't even remotely comparable. If hundreds of thousands will participate, somebody will get injured even if it would be about crossing the street.

The sad truth is, some folks ain't completely right in their head, become obsessive over these kind of things (and other aspects of their lives), and then eventually bad things start happening.

Life is supposed to be adventure, not a safe walk in the park, shying away from any potential danger. Clearly Fenn thinks this way, and I can't agree more.

Shouldn’t we ban national parks from advertising and shut down National Geographic, then? I went to the Grand Canyon and a couple of other parks, and there were plenty of opportunities to die. If I had I wouldn’t want the parks shut down.

It’s a good deed to send hundreds off searching the wilderness based on a fake story about a treasure chest that never existed?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com