Home - Destinations - iPhone/Android - Partners - Forum - Photos - Deals - What's New
Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
most dangerous aspect of climbing
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 3 of 3.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
By Winston O'Boogie
From Dixon, CA
Feb 24, 2014

I think it varies very much on the type of climbing you are undertaking. I think the biggest danger is letting your guard down even for a second, that is how all sorts of accidents happen, from falling to rappels, to bad ice or avalanches. The Alex Lowe story, incredibly experienced, supposedly they watched the avalanche for a few seconds, would be pretty amazing from afar, because they thought it would not reach them and by the time they moved it was too late.

Rock fall scares me personally, probably more at a local crag than in the mountains. Being around inexperienced climbers increases the danger a ton I think, I have seen plenty of close calls with new climbers pulling rock off short routes and people hanging around the base of the climb with no helmet, smaller than a baseball can kill, and even a marble size piece from 100 feet can cause some serious damage. I don't climb in the mountains right after storms, because rock fall scares me and its not worth it. There are always ways to mitigate risk. I don't feel like decking on sport climbs and depending on the bolting will even clip the second bolt with a stick, fuck what people think its sport climbing anyway.


FLAG
By Jacob Smith
From Mill Creek, WA
Feb 24, 2014
Chair Peak, top of first pitch

What you are describing is modeling behavior, not natural selection. It is possible that our species is slowly adapting itself to a diet of highly processed grains and sugars, but our medical system insures that people with diabetes or weight problems are no less likely to reproduce than those who are more healthy. we think dying young means 55, as far as natural selection is concerned, dying young means prepubescent.
Cultural changes are far more responsible for our changing ways of thinking than natural selection, in 10,000 years we may be generally better able to handle driving and texting at the same time, but something tells me it will be a moot point by then.
Again, the idea that we have gotten smarter or fitter simply does not hold up historically. we have different skills than our ancestors did, but those skills are not more skillful. up until the 20th century politicians regularly memorized speeches several hours in duration, children on the "college track" learned greek and latin in grammar school, and the average person thought nothing of walking 20 miles in a day. now we build teleprompters, teach kids to use excel, and do yoga. progress is a myth.


FLAG
By Winston O'Boogie
From Dixon, CA
Feb 24, 2014

Bouldering, every fall is a ground fall, go ask Hayden Kennedy out of all his amazing exploits what has injured him.


FLAG
By Jeff Samuels
Feb 24, 2014
Angel

Jacob Smith wrote:
What you are describing is modeling behavior, not natural selection. It is possible that our species is slowly adapting itself to a diet of highly processed grains and sugars, but our medical system insures that people with diabetes or weight problems are no less likely to reproduce than those who are more healthy. we think dying young means 55, as far as natural selection is concerned, dying young means prepubescent. Cultural changes are far more responsible for our changing ways of thinking than natural selection, in 10,000 years we may be generally better able to handle driving and texting at the same time, but something tells me it will be a moot point by then. Again, the idea that we have gotten smarter or fitter simply does not hold up historically. we have different skills than our ancestors did, but those skills are not more skillful. up until the 20th century politicians regularly memorized speeches several hours in duration, children on the "college track" learned greek and latin in grammar school, and the average person thought nothing of walking 20 miles in a day. now we build teleprompters, teach kids to use excel, and do yoga. progress is a myth.

so are you saying we are deteriorating as species? Or maybe we just realized that we can drive those 20 miles, and can live to 85 instead to only about 40 like it was in old times?


FLAG
By Jacob Smith
From Mill Creek, WA
Feb 24, 2014
Chair Peak, top of first pitch

Jeff Samuels wrote:
Ok take a person born in 1700 and bring him into today. First of all they were much smaller. I went to a museum once to look at the armour of medevial era knights. I was surprised how petit they were compared to an average Euro desendant today. They surely were not smarter, cos they would not pay taxes to the King because they have an extra window in their house. Try telling people that in this country!


The reason those suits of armor are so small is that the ones used by actual soldiers tended to be left on the battlefield, leaving the 14 year old prince's birthday present to be left in the closet and wind up in a museum.
Don't really understand your point about taxes at all. they paid stupid taxes then, we pay stupid taxes now.
Also, that video A) is scripted B) relies on the same fallacies about natural selection that i am trying to argue against and C) is deeply offensive to poor people, they don't have more children because they have low IQ, they do it because they don't have access to the same education opportunities as the wealthy, largely because the wealthy have deliberately denied it to them to keep them in a state of servitude.


FLAG
By Jacob Smith
From Mill Creek, WA
Feb 24, 2014
Chair Peak, top of first pitch

Jeff Samuels wrote:
so are you saying we are deteriorating as species? Or maybe we just realized that we can drive those 20 miles, and can live to 85 instead to only about 40 like it was in old times?


No. We are not progressing, we are not deteriorating, things just change.
Also, the age thing is a common misconception, average lifespans in the pre-modern world are deceptive because of high infant mortality rates, the average may be forty but if you survived childhood you had as good of a chance of making 80 as we do today (cancer or a random injury might pick you off sooner, but then you were probably way healthier to begin with, so it all evens out).


FLAG
By Jeff Samuels
Feb 24, 2014
Angel

Jacob Smith wrote:
No. We are not progressing, we are not deteriorating, things just change. Also, the age thing is a common misconception, average lifespans in the pre-modern world are deceptive because of high infant mortality rates, the average may be forty but if you survived childhood you had as good of a chance of making 80 as we do today (cancer or a random injury might pick you off sooner, but then you were probably way healthier to begin with, so it all evens out).

people were smaller back then. Look at women's dresses an corsets too. Don't tell me all wives died and left their dresses in the fields as well, and the only ones left were the little girl's birthday gifts. A living example is when an average Philipino family immigrates to the US it is just a matter of a few generations that their offsprings become taller then them. This can be due to nutrition, nevertheless proves that people do get taller given the nourishment and the environment conducive to development.
One of the major causes of mortality in adulthood back in time was dental decay and people rarely made it into their 80's. Cancer cases were less prevalent because just not so many people made it into advanced age.
When it comes to rich vs poor. I think the nature just takes its course. Romans with their lead water systems, inbreeding related diseases, and now affluensia helps reach the balance. The poor always had more kids. In my opinion because they value family ties and strengh in numbers. Not because of the low IQ.


FLAG
By J Sundstrom
From Seattle, WA
Feb 24, 2014
Story of my life.

Despite the enormous detour this thread has taken, I appreciated the Idiocracy reference.

And of course it's scripted/fallacious/'offensive'; it's a Mike Judge film. That's the point, isn't it?


FLAG
By Meme Guy
From Land of Runout Slab
Feb 24, 2014
Meme guy

Shut the fuck up about natural selection, go find a Christian to argue with you about it.

Climbing is def the most dangerous part of climbing.


FLAG
By Jeff Samuels
Feb 24, 2014
Angel

Meme Guy wrote:
Shut the fuck up about natural selection, go find a Christian to argue with you about it. Climbing is def the most dangerous part of climbing.

As in living is the most dangerous part of life.


FLAG
By Tom-o Sapien
Feb 24, 2014
Conky and I confront Patrick Swayze

Jeff Samuels wrote:
No I'm fixed! Hahaha you crack me up! Am I right or am I right?! :) Not to downgrade myself but he IS the Brains! I am not ashamed to say that.

Thank you for sharing this.
We can all sleep a little easier now not having to worry about Samuels progeny mucking up the gene pool.


FLAG
By fossana
From Boulder, CO
Feb 24, 2014
West Overhang

Jeff Samuels wrote:
Mountaineeing is way down from tech climbing? I don't think so.


As I mentioned, these are stats for Boulder CO, mostly non-alpine.


FLAG
By Winston O'Boogie
From Dixon, CA
Feb 24, 2014

What Boulder in CO are you talking about? I think bouldering is dangerous to, I feel like you saying that the boulder is a town though, is there good climbing there?


FLAG
By Jacob Smith
From Mill Creek, WA
Feb 24, 2014
Chair Peak, top of first pitch

Winston O'Boogie wrote:
What Boulder in CO are you talking about? I think bouldering is dangerous to, I feel like you saying that the boulder is a town though, is there good climbing there?


Sometimes I just don't understand the internet.


FLAG
By don'tchuffonme
Feb 24, 2014
urrr

Not knowing that you don't know something that you need to know.


FLAG
By Sir Spanxalot
Feb 24, 2014
no

How does smoking weed at the crag make you any smarter or dumber? You do understand people smoke weed before coming to the crag, are they dumb?

Have you ever smoked weed? If anything, it makes you a little more careful about what you're doing. Seriously...


FLAG
By Tom-o Sapien
Feb 24, 2014
Conky and I confront Patrick Swayze

Sir Spanxalot wrote:
How does smoking weed at the crag make you any smarter or dumber? You do understand people smoke weed before coming to the crag, are they dumb? Have you ever smoked weed? If anything, it makes you a little more careful about what you're doing. Seriously...

The local news this morning indicated police were starting to crack down on people driving to 2 to 5 miles under the speed limit; as these people are most likely "hi."

-not the speeders.
The people driving under the speed limit.

It must be the 'straight' speeders rear ending the elderly and stoned drivers that is causing a rise in mj related accidents.


FLAG
By Sir Spanxalot
Feb 24, 2014
no

You're picking up what I'm putting down, Tom-O. Check this shit out




Seriously, people drink beer and climb, I see that all the time, but on this site people are witch hunting that pot heads aren't safe climbers. Have you ever hung out w any good climbers? A shit ton of them get high, before they climb. Not rip roaring baked, but a little lightening of the head if you know what I mean.

Ok... Most dangerous part of climbing... Fucking up and doing something stupid. This often results in a fall, which according to ANAM does damage. My T12 and L1 would agree.


FLAG
By Jacob Smith
From Mill Creek, WA
Feb 24, 2014
Chair Peak, top of first pitch

Sir Spanxalot wrote:
Seriously, people drink beer and climb, I see that all the time, but on this site people are witch hunting that pot heads aren't safe climbers. Have you ever hung out w any good climbers? A shit ton of them get high, before they climb. Not rip roaring baked, but a little lightening of the head if you know what I mean.


It's not my thing, but I have to agree, three of the three best climbers I know smoke while climbing. It can get really annoying when they ask me multiple times what routes we did that day, but I can't claim it interferes with their climbing.


FLAG
By MC Poopypants
Feb 25, 2014
Dropping a deuce

The biggest danger with climbing is to give it any amount of importance in your life. The more power you give it, the more control it has over you. It will play with your emotions.


FLAG
By Ty Gregory
From Salt Lake City
Feb 25, 2014

Climbing certainly diminishes your fitness (if you die climbing before having children) in the Darwinian sense and at the same time as a species we have for the most part removed ourselves from the process of natural selection. Concepts like social Darwinism are complete and absolute fallacies, they have no place except in identifying those who are fascists at heart and don't quite know it.


FLAG
By Winston O'Boogie
From Dixon, CA
Feb 26, 2014

Ty Gregory wrote:
Climbing certainly diminishes your fitness


I'm of the belief that climbing certainly increases your fitness, or at the very least increasing your fitness increases your climbing ability.

I know this is not the intention of your post, and I don't care, I'm just not sure how a simple question of what is dangerous about climbing became some religious and philosophical discussion at all.

I really think climbing is a relatively safe endeavor. If you are injured, 90% of the time you were blowing it, usually a mental mistake. Even rockfall, wear a helmet, climb a different route, don't climb right after a storm, dont climb under another party. I would still assume that if you take total pitches climbed divided by rockfall incidents you would have a very low number, <1%.

As with everything in life, don't suck, the consequences can be painful.


FLAG
By kiff
Feb 26, 2014

Probably Gravity


FLAG
By MJMobes
From The land of steady habits
Feb 26, 2014
modern man

Jacob Smith wrote:
It can get really annoying when they ask me multiple times what routes we did that day, but I can't claim it interferes with their climbing.


its like an onsight every time!


FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 3 of 3.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3