That was one of the comments at Althouse about the death of Christopher Roma, who died between Mt. Bond and Mt Guyot late at night. I suspected Mt Washington, as many of the commenters did, but that wasn't it.
I commented there:
I was sure the location must be mistaken, because he would have already hiked over 10 miles in the snow, most of those in the dark. I haven't hiked this in 30, no (ouch) 45 years*, but Bond to Guyot is basically a ridge, so he knew he would be exposed, and well above tree line. He must have been close to the shelter spur trail (he may have missed it in the dark and blizzard), but still a long way from both of the huts, which would have closed months ago anyway."Nature doesn't care if you're having fun" Larry Niven, was another comment.
But he's from the next town over and knew this particular trail well, and there are a precious few who have physically accomplished the type of winter hiking he was doing. If anyone could have pulled this off, he would be one of them.
But that's the point, isn't it? That this sort of competing against nature and competing against your own body never ends. There is always one slightly more crazy thing to do at the end of each insane risk. "Take care of nature" he said, as if it were some sort of living creature to be bargained with. If I am only nice to this wolfie and respect him, I'm sure he'll be good to me. We talk ourselves into crazy rationalisations when we just like doing something.
*I have done zero of the 4K's in winter. I decided that 40 years ago. Too many things can go wrong too quickly, no matter how good you are.
7 comments:
That commenter went on to do his usual he-man chest beating though I noticed that in his recounting of his exploits he didn't appear to personally come close to this level of danger. It was always somebody else.
I really am of two minds .. maybe three.
I get, from reading Grim's postings on virtues, that it is necessary to put them into practice. Exposing yourself to the challenge in controlled conditions builds the habits you might need when called on in an emergency.
This certainly wasn't like some cases where a person who doesn't know any better does something incredibly stupid without due consideration for preparation or consequences.
Still, it raises a question of the exercise of good judgement in my mind, especially given he was supposed to be experienced in these sort of conditions. If you asked some folks to accompany you and they declined, maybe they had good reason to think what you proposed was a bad idea. He was a apparently a guide, and I have had flashes of thinking maybe it's a good thing he isn't in a position to take other people out in questionable conditions any more.
Also uncharitable, as a species we seem to be famously bad at anticipating novel risk. I don't think there's a reason to assume that only applies to situations that have a bad outcome.
I didn't read the story (paywall), but one of the incidental comments struck me: that he sent out a distress call at 10 pm, which apparently initiated the rescue efforts.
It caught me out, 'wait what?' He had a cell phone or some kind of emergency communications device (like a GPS texter or something), and didn't use it earlier to call for help? It made me wonder whether it was signal-related or whether he was trying to tough it out. Tragically poor risk assessment.
I tend to the, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” School on this. Yes, poor decision making, but I can see the thinking that may have led to it. Cascading conditions may have demanded gear he thought he didn’t need, and in a quest for speed, he eroded his safety margin. It happens, usually there are fallback resources, but conditions delayed them. A hand saw, matches, shelter half, etc, all might have averted his death. He was likely a risk-taker, and pushed too far, with too little, and this is the unfortunate result.
I think these are the standard answers, and I don't disagree with them. However, I did want to go one level deeper. He had already done the "best of your planning, best of your skills, best of your effort" many times, and proved himself exceptionally good at that. My point is that it is the nature of these endeavors to always push you to the next step to find satisfaction. Good practices are sometimes brought on by bad motives. (It is a CS Lewis point that all virtues can be accomplished from pride rather than piety, but that pride is ultimately worse for you. It creates an imitation - sometimes an almost indistinguishable one, yes - but not the real thing. Think of a Victorian woman asserting her virginity when she merely considers herself too good for the local boys, or a scholar whose "love of learning" is merely an effort to show his father that he is smarter and better than the parent he considers a failure.)
When one has exhausted all the good judgement, and reasonably good judgement, and marginally good judgement options in this sort of self-competitive endeavor, it is inevitable that eventually bad judgement must creep in, in order to get that feeling, which might charitably be called "sense of accomplishment" but is far more often just adrenaline rush. He chose a path which only avoided death by just enough good luck, not any virtue of his. It was not this incident, which I agree was no worse than other things he had accomplished, but the collection of incidents because of the path that he chose.
I misworded my second comment a bit. In retrospect "evaluating novel risk" was closer to my thoughts.
He might never have been in as much danger before even if he, and others, felt he had survived similar situations. It's probably a toss-up to call it luck or judgement.
After thinking about it for a while, AVI, the only thing I have to add to your point is this: A man's got to die of something. Constructing a life that courts certain kinds of death can be, therefore, a mindful way of living with that necessary fact. That fact is part of God's plan, not only for you and I but everyone. It's not wrong to decide how to live with the fact that you must die, and to construct a life that courts the risks of deaths you think are worthy.
Post a Comment