Hacker News Reader

> your implication that a person walking off into the woods leads to no additional demands on others

I don't deny that dying out alone in the wilderness does end up having a cost to others. I don't agree that the potential cost of it should preclude someone from doing it.

The whole argument against McCandless begins to sound absurd.

"Does an individual have the right to die alone in the wilderness?"

If you pose the question this way, the answer becomes obvious. If you were to ask me if someone has the right to suicide by train or suicide by cop, or even if they have the right to jump off a bridge, I'd be inclinded to say no, or at least hesitate on the last one.

But being alone in the wilderness, prepared or not, is a different category.

I'm not really sure his right to die in the wilderness is what's most pertinent about his case though. Those of us who have wilderness experience should caution others who don't to prepare and educate themselves, instead of just going for it and seeing what happens. Because what often happens is a lengthy search and rescue process, and sometimes PTSD or death. Maybe that's what he wanted, but I kind of doubt it.

The question isn't what he should or shouldn't have done. That part is crystal clear. The question is why do people feel entitled to moral indignation on account of someone hiking out alone into the wilderness. The arguments so far have not been convincing - it costs money to fly them out, it puts SAR in danger.

We are social animals. Raising one person takes a lot of work from their parents, caregivers, teachers, friends -- "It takes a village to raise a child", proverb says. This is why just letting someone fall off the cliff (on their own will or not) is not in the interest of the society as a whole.

It's insane to me how people here are so libertarian when it comes to experimenting with drugs or legalising it, which has the potential to incur far more costs to society and harm to others than venturing into the wild, perhaps unprepared. For the record, I'm not advocating people be stopped from either, but IMO the latter will appeal to far fewer people, and so is a much smaller problem, and has more positive benefits.

We haven’t gotten there as a society yet, but there should be a “don’t look for me if I’m lost/captured” checkbox somewhere.

It’s my life. If I want to sail around Africa and I’m held for ransom, leave me to it.

If I want to hike a deadly trail, don’t come rescue me and then blame me for it.

Because of the people who died looking for this bus, nobody else can now see it. As a traveler, I see this happening too often: I see a place, I do something, 5 years later you can’t anymore because someone hurt themselves.

My idea is: put up a sign saying “5 people died here” and let new visitors figure it out for themselves.

You say we haven't gotten there as a society yet and I say we haven't gotten there as individuals. I really don't think most people, and I definitely include myself in this, know themselves and the world well enough to make such a tremendous decision by themselves in the abstract. It's one thing to want an euthanasia if you're in pain and want it to stop, it's an other to say "just let me die if something goes wrong" when that possibility is a remote and abstract thing.

Most of us have lived very sheltered lives. Most of us haven't felt what it's like to be really, really thirsty. Or really, really hungry. Or really, really cold. Or really, really tired. Or really, really lonely. Or really, really scared. Or all these things at the same time.

I can definitely imagine many people would sign a "don't help me if I'm in danger" waiver out of principle or motivated by some romantic fantasy. Then they end up shitting themselves in a freezing hole in Alaska because they ate bad berries, and they're crying and regretting everything and would be willing to do anything to be out of this place. Suddenly the lofty ideals and the romantic movies start feeling really dumb and absurd.

The principles don't matter anymore, the survival instinct kicked in a long time ago. Fortunately you have a satellite phone and you manage to call the rescue. "Sorry sir or madam, but you did sign a waiver. If you want help you'll have to pay the $300,000 standard search and rescue fee in advance. Thank you for choosing the Walt Disney Search and Rescue Services. Have a pleasant evening!".

I'd argue that any "lofty ideal and romantic notion" is by definition wrong, because it assumes a simplicity about the world that empirically, demonstrable does not exist.

maybe the rangers should start taking deposits lol. "safety deposits" as insurance against future rescue. i say that sarcastically, but it actually doesn't seem like the worst idea ever.

...or just use taxes because it's a super low amount anyway and the payment structure is already in place

(i actually agree with this, it's just everyone else seemed to think it was an awful waste of government resources to fish a few people out of the wild a year, or whatever)

There are some popular multi-day trails in New Zealand that do this. You have to register months ahead of time to get a slot, and a rescue deposit is required.

> My idea is: put up a sign saying “5 people died here” and let new visitors figure it out for themselves.

Hanakapiai Beach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanakapiai_Beach

this is what they do at ski resorts, though only in an indirect way (putting up crosses for ski patrollers that have died there). i worry all the time about whether all the "fun skiing" in-bounds is going to be ultimately subject to a similar fate for similar reasons. so far that hasn't been the case, because i think most sufficiently dangerous skiing is so self-evidently dangerous that people mostly know what they're getting into, but it still feels like a tenuous compromise.

ultimately, though, i agree with this. a sign saying "5 people died here" (maybe with w/e relevant contextual info) is the exact nature, and extent, of information that i think needs to be made clear to people.

At Revelstoke there is a particular part of the ski boundary that has signs like this. Something to the effect of "there is a cliff beyond these trees, and people have died here, go no further".

I'll leave this here. With half a century I've come around to the idea that there are a lot of people that tend to not make very good decisions. And it's not because they are somehow 'dumb' or even foolhardy. With that I have a hard time moralizing about them.