He survived for 113 days in the wilderness, not too bad. He was unprepared, yes, but it also seems he knew that what he was doing was risky, and he seems to have been ok taking that risk. I'm not quite sure - why judge him negatively?
However, he never knew and never will know any of that happened. All he cared about is the journey, how is he possibly responsible for inspiring unprepared people to go into the woods? It's not like he's a still-living lifestyle blogger who goads people into doing this. He's not a hero but he's not deserving of all the flack he gets.
That's one way to frame it. The other way is simply to say that it took him 113 days to starve to death. Lest anyone have the wrong impressions from the book/movie, he didn't die because he ate poisonous berries that messed up his digestive system. He simply burned more calories than he consumed.
I'm not one of those who think negatively of him. He himself wrote something to the effect of not having regrets and being grateful he went on this journey when he knew he was probably going to starve to death. Who am I to criticize him for it? He lived the way he wanted to, and when it was clear it was leading to his death, he was at peace with that.
How do you know?
Actually, reading up on it now, it seems there have been more developments since I last read it a decade ago.
In any case, let's just say there are proponents of both theories. In my opinion, though, Occam's razor points to simple starvation.
The "poison berries" refer to potato seeds, no? McCandless wrote about eating them in his journal, they weren't fabricated by some writer.
> Day 78: Missed wolf. Ate potato seeds and many berries coming.
> Day 94: Woodpecker. Fog. Extremely weak. Fault of potato seed. Much trouble just to stand up. Starving. Great jeopardy.
it wasn't that what he did was risky, it's that what he did was unnecessarily risky. if he wasn't so stupid about it, it would have been a lot less risky. taking on a challenge is admirable, but taking it on without any respect for the difficulty of the thing you're attempting is dumb.
But pearl clutching about the risks someone else decided to take is incredibly petty. And odds are, as a fellow HN jockey who posts every day like myself, you aren't taking nearly enough.
His chosen risks inflicted downsides on others.
Well, yes - is this an argument against dying in general? Fully agreed - it sucks!
> someone had to remove it
Yes, that's what people do with dead bodies!
> someone had to clean the public shelter he died in
The abandoned bus? Well no one had to clean it, but I suppose someone cleaned it? Yes, cleaning up after dead people is a nuisance.
So preferably he shouldn't have died, ever? To spare the people finding his body, removing it, and cleaning up?
> Yes, that's what people do with dead bodies!
Entire point is, his death was easily avoidable. He chose not to avoid it, thus impacting other people needlessly.
He didn't even have a map.
He was either incredibly wreckless and/or dumb.
"Man walks into the wilderness without a map, plan, or any preparation and eventually dies" <-- this just isn't a story worth telling.
I think people judge his effort by their own interpretation of success. It could just be that some people "get" him and some don't.
Filmmakers dramatize and re-interpret events all the time.
There is no 'real-life story' other than a moron who went into the deep wilderness without even a map. And were he to have taken even basic precautions, would be alive and well.
You said it wasn't a story worth telling. History says it was told by published article, book, and then a movie. And it's obviously of note enough that people from around the world make a pilgrimage there, that they've removed the bus, that the bus removal is international news and that people will still visit the site where the bus was!
It obviously resonates with some people and not with others. Some get it, they understand the motivation, it means something to them. It's OK to not be one of those people.
It 'proves' that an idiot, thinking he was taking 'basic precautions', but really was taking none at all, walked blindly to his own death, can be twisted by authors and narrative makes into some kind of 'insightful' story.
It 'proves' that populism is for fools who can't take the time to just see what is in front of them.
"A man decided to fly an airplane without any training or knowledge whatsoever and died on takeoff - here is the story of his enlightening journey"
When Alex Honnold free-soloed El Capitan, the exact point was that he didn't have a rope. He had a desperate urge to challenge himself with bigger and more difficult tasks.
This is like asking why a parachuter would need to bother to pack their shoot correctly before going on a jump.
Or why a race car driver would bother to wear a seat belt.
'Having a map' might be the #1 thing he could do to ensure his survival, as he probably would have been able to walk out were he to have done this.
He apparently was not suicidal, and probably didn't intend on dying. His 'preparations' were not really 'preparations' so much as they were the actions of a stupid, glib or over-confident fool thinking that he was prepared.
He literally turned down the offer of 'reasonable gear' from someone thinking that he wanted to have a more 'natural experience'.
"Hey maybe you ought to wear a seatbelt of you're going to go for the land speed record"
"No thanks, I'm good, I want it to be more 'natural'"
This is the framing point of stupidity: mountain climbers, BASE jumpers, race car drivers take risks of course, but they're not stupid about it. The risks make sense in the context of what they are doing.
This is not the story of a man seeking enlightenment, it's about an otherwise entitled moron (not many kids have big college funds to 'give away') who stupidly and unnecessarily died.
"Let's give away money and go play on the highway" is what the book should have been called.
Sorry but this just isn't true. There's too many variables to account for, the season, terrain, availability of large game, availability and proximity of water. Even in the best circumstances, outdoor survival isn't easy. There is one particular show (forgot the name) where contestants are put into an area on their own and tasked to survive as long as possible. The areas are specifically chosen for their viability. Even then very few people, even those with experience, make it past 90 days.
Successful survival is a conglomeration of many skills, hunting, navigation, sheltering, foraging, cooking, weather adaptation, emotional regulation, food preparation and preservation, shooting, injury prevention and care, etc. Of course preparation is an important factor, but your statement suggesting that just about anyone can do it given some basic research is a huge stretch.
How many people actually die trying to rescue people like him?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/90751216/memorial-for...