[tasuki]

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?

[BelleOfTheBall]

A lot of people judge him negatively because of what happened post his death: a non-fiction book about him, a feature film, hundreds of imitators, a cult of "hard survival". This lead to people dying, getting malnourished, government funds being spent on rescuing them.

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.

[BeetleB]

> He survived for 113 days in the wilderness, not too bad.

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.

[tasuki]

> he didn't die because he ate poisonous berries that messed up his digestive system. He simply burned more calories than he consumed.

How do you know?

[BeetleB]

The "poisonous berries" theory came from one writer who did shoddy research. Those berries do not even exist in that region.

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.

[catalogia]

> Those berries do not even exist in that region

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.

[catalogia]

He kept a journal. The berries were probably the final straw, but he was already starving.

[notatoad]

surviving 113 days in the wilderness isn't that great of a feat. if you were prepared, and had done a bare minimum of research and planning beforehand, you could manage not to die.

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.

[hombre_fatal]

This is just internet forum backseat driving. I'm sure the average hard-boiled HNer could've outlasted him with their innate wilderness intuitions -- probably have even watched a few survival videos on Youtube --, but Chris' story is also about a guy who wanted to march away from the trappings of society. I wouldn't be surprised if he died at day 113 even if he was 2x or 4x as prepared. He would have just went deeper quicker.

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.

[EdwardDiego]

I hunt and tramp (hike) and there's inherent risk, and risk that can be removed or minimised, and the risks he took that killed him were unnecessary ones.

[tasuki]

Yes, he took "unnecessary" risks. I understand his goal was not to "minimize unnecessary risks". If that's your goal, fine. It's mine, too. It wasn't his goal.

[EdwardDiego]

Yes, but he didn't exist in a vacuum - someone had to find his decomposing body, someone had to remove it, someone had to clean the public shelter he died in.

His chosen risks inflicted downsides on others.

[tasuki]

> someone had to find his decomposing body

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?

[jariel]

"This is just internet forum backseat driving."

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.

[prawn]

Yeah, and I bet it won't get made into a movie either. Or have people still discussing it years later. Not worth telling at all.

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.

[jariel]

No, there is nothing to 'get'. He was an fool.

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.

[prawn]

I'll try it from a different angle. Included in the things he took with him were 5kg of rice and a gun with 400 rounds - that's some level of planning. Now, he didn't have a plan so he didn't take a map. Why would he take a map? He had a vague idea of what he wanted to do, and part of it was seeing if he could survive off the land. He couldn't; so be it. He could've been more prepared and increased his chances of survival, but the point that resonates with some people was that he tried. He got off his arse. He wasn't beholden to the expectations of his parents or his money or the usual life. I have a friend who loves the idea of going on adventures and makes endless technical lists and buys gear, then barely goes anywhere. He has lots of maps...

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.

[prawn]

Proving my point.

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.

[sinker]

> surviving 113 days in the wilderness isn't that great of a feat. if you were prepared, and had done a bare minimum of research and planning beforehand, you could manage not to die.

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.

[xenihn]

I think I get it. Everyone knows his name, but no one knows the names of people who lived and died trying to rescue people like him.

[hombre_fatal]

Well, don't leave us hanging after suggesting such moral failing with so much contempt.

How many people actually die trying to rescue people like him?

[EdwardDiego]

Here's one from my local area - the climbers shouldn't have been up there, the incoming weather was predictable, they thought they could beat it, they didn't, and as a result, a rescuer was killed by an avalanche trying to save them - but they were all killed by avalanches also.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/90751216/memorial-for...