[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?

[EdwardDiego]

The abandoned bus that had been converted into _shelter_ for other back-country users. Shelter is vital, so not sure why you're minimising it.

> 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.

[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.

[jariel]

"Why would he take a map?"

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.

[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.

[jariel]

It 'proves' that narratives can be created out of anything.

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"

[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.