As I remember it, Into the Wild was a pretty clear suggestion that blindly trying to turn to nature with no background, experience and knowledge was a really easy way to die... even if he managed it for a few months.
So this seems particularly dumb if thats the inspiration
The book makes the point you make. But I also saw the movie and it kinda glorifies McCandless making him more hero like. I was quite surprised how different the feel of the movie was from the book.
I felt the book made that point quite well. I saw the trailers for the movie, and never saw it because I felt it would do exactly what you said.
For the book's author, Jon Krakauer, the story is a personal one because he himself did stuff just as dangerous when he was younger. He tells a story of solo ice climbing when he almost died. I think Krakauer is fascinated by McCandless because he could have ended up the same way, and he's grateful that he didn't. Krakauer lived and adjusted to being an adult in our society. He grew up. That's what I find tragic about McCandless and the people idolizing him, and dying trying to follow his footsteps. I think that if McCandless had lived, he would have eventually adjusted to society as well.
I don't think the movie makes him look like a hero. Rather, it tries to tell the story from his viewpoint, and it's far from heroic when he contemplates the mistakes he made and its inability to escape his adventure in Alaska.
I understand where you may be coming from but I disagree.
If you have an economic perspective for the hero, yes, most of the time heroic is dumb (standing up for what's right to your own economic detriment, fighting a patent troll in court, risking your life for a stranger, etc). But being heroic is not about economics. It's almost precisely the point.
Generally speaking, heroic is not dumb, but almost always requires a lot of risk. We consider people heros or heroines because they take on risk to do the right thing, which is often the thing the masses are unwilling to attempt and/or unable to accomplish.
It certainly helps to accomplish, but most people will consider heroic acts those that take on a lot of risk to do the right thing despite the outcome.
People seem to interpret it a few different ways. The idea of "checking out of society" really appeals to some and he's heroic for doing it. Fight Club has a similar, almost cultish, following.
Although there can be a healthy way to distance oneself from the idiocies and chaos of modern society, there’s a difference between wise detachment and running away. I fear too many people are attracted to the easy way.
Movies are a visual medium. The problem with the movie versions of Fight Club and Into the Wild is that they show dumb people doing bad things, but those dumb people are played by beautiful actors who are photographed very flatteringly. So people watch them and come away not thinking “man, that guy was dumb and bad,” but “man, that guy looked cool, I want to be like him!”
I mean, both ideas exist in the movie; the idea itself was naive idealism and the lack of preparation gets him killed.. but what little time he had there was great.
The lesson: its a good idea, but don’t run in unprepared, and don’t think nature is without danger
As I remember the film, it was death by poison mushroom, risked due to starvation — I feel like it was a death depicted over maybe two weeks. I remember the overall stay being quite bearable.. until the winter hit, and everything went wrong; and death came swiftly and without mercy
But regardless the movie depicts it as a fairly slow, very painful, and a fairly pathetic death (alone, weak, with lots of regret and little to show for it), but still 90% of the movie was him running around in gorgeous nature shots and small towns.
Actually, I believe (at least in the movie) it came from eating a type of poisonous berry that he naively mistook for a very similar-looking nonpoisonous berry.
No, don't. Providing the most polluting form of transport to somewhere isolated and tranquil for profit, to allow the rich and lazy to get there in a day trip is disgusting. But hey they are rich, let them ruin it for others who made an effort to get there. The rich are what we should all aspire to as the ultimate form of success and happiness, right?
I find the constant hustle to find an angle to monetise something quite sad. Especially when aimed solely at the rich to the detriment of everyone else.
Why does everything need to be exploited? Sanitised? Made safe. You undertake something dangerous, then death is a possibility that is understood. Just accept it.
Interesting, I read this as sort of the opposite, not exploitation, but irony. The people who are doing a pilgrimage for their own journey rather than the popularized destination will find other interesting places and stop crowding into one dangerous locale for a while so it cools down. People who just want an Instagram selfy with the bus will get their fill without annoying the locals so much.
Strangely, destroying the desirability by offering helicopter rides in the short term may save it as a destination for the truly intrepid in the future.
>You undertake something dangerous, then death is a possibility that is understood. Just accept it.
You dont live in an isolated bubble. You will call for help if lost or injured and it will be up to others to either take on the grueling task of mounting a rescue in such conditions or leaving you for dead while you beg for help on the radio. In reality they will have no choice but to put them self in danger to rescue an adventure tourist. With the given example of the magic bus its volunteer firefights who have to rescue these tourists.
Except you dont put yourself recklessly in danger on purpose for fun relying on rescue infrastructure meant for accidents. Being reckless is not an accident nor should it be an emergency.
I dont really see a difference to Everest tourism, where people push beyond their limits to reach the top hoping that someone will get them down again. And then there is an outcry when they cant be helped, like the media spectacle around David Sharp. He went up there without oxygen and people saw him dying right on the track unable to get him down.
If you value your life so little its your choice, but please consider what that does to people who have to leave you begging or getting them to gamble their own life to save you.
"reckless" is an insult used to demean the victims, it's not objective. One day it's reckless the other day it's courageous, it all depends on wether you want to insult or glorify the people, there is no objective measure.
If you voluntarily come ill-prepared into a life threatening situation to have fun you are reckless and selfish. It risks not just your life but the lives of the people around you.
Glorifying this sort of behavior is completely irresponsible.
edit: Did you reflect about how some people might take your posts here as a motivation for a grand adventure? Not thinking about it to much and just breaking out of the daily grind and experiencing the magic bus?
edit2: I mean this is really beyond me, if anyone is actually thinking about doing something like this, think for one moment what you would tell the family of a rescuer who might die trying to save you from your own stupidity. That you are sorry?
> allow the rich and lazy to get there in a day trip is disgusting.
I can understand being against the pollution, but aside from that, how can what the "rich and lazy" do bother you in any way? People harming the environment should bother you equally whether they're rich or poor, lazy or industrious.
Monetization of something as a goal to be the next billion dollar unicorn vs monetization of something useful as a lifestyle product are different paths that cater to a majority of people who frequent HN. But constant hustle to find an angle is another part of it. In some cases people find the next thing organically, and then you have others constantly trying to slam the square peg in a round hole. It seems as though the latter is more often focused on acquiring wealth to be rich rather than having a passion for a tangible product/solution.
often focused on acquiring wealth to be rich rather than having a passion for a tangible product/solution
There's nothing wrong with it. On the surface, what if someone has a passion which is unprofitable? Becoming rich is the way, and motivation to be able to practice it. And going deeper: having 'a passion' doesn't necessary make anyone a better person vs someone who just wants to give his/her kids a better start, and spend the last part of life being able to pay medical bills.
Most of visitors coming there are young, saving pennies for the trip, they won't pay for anything except food. The better idea would be to relocate this damned bus closer to habitable area.
It exists [0] in a way. I was just in Healy in June and there is a pub with the bus used in the movie. Tourists line up to take pics. The beer is very tasty! I hadn’t read the book or seen the movie so I scratched my head at all the commotion until the bartender explained.
Why stop it? Just make sure the dangers are known, and if people still die trying to get to it, then that's their own dumb fault. Why try to take something away from the people that know what they're getting into and want to do it anyway?
Believe it or not, there is another Magic Bus up there, that they used for shooting the movie. It’s very easily accessible, and you don’t have to risk your life to get to it.
This article is actually factually incorrect. He didn't die of starvation, he died of poison. He ate some seeds that contained a neurotoxin or something like that.
McCandless starved to death. Why he starved to death is not settled (and probably never will be), and a poison which prevented his body from metabolizing food is one suspected contributing factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McCandless#Death
I thought the berries just weakened him rather than killed him outright. In his weakened state he was unable to go forage for food and due to his malnourished state (especially lack of fats) could have died from the cold just as easy. I need to re-read the book though it has been a long time, I really enjoyed it and I remember having a feeling of understanding and agreeing with his way of life thanks to problems I had at the time with major depression. I remember I even planned to leave everything behind and go and head to Alaska to try and see what he saw before I probably died myself.
This is incorrect. Jon Krakauer who wrote Into the Wild pulled this out of his ass. The dude just starved cuz he had no idea what he was doing. He was a pretty shitty person all around.
When McCandless began his journey he didn't know the bus was there. He just picked a random direction and started walking. If you're intentionally walking towards the bus, you're following his literal footsteps but you're not replicating the same conditions. If you wanted to really follow in his footsteps you should pick an equally random direction and start walking. Odds are you won't find a bus and no one will ever find your body.
Recently in Ontario the Amber Alert system for forcibly alerting phones got booted up. It got me thinking about the use of technology for non-optional alerts.
What if phones were loaded with some basic geometry layers, so when your phone's GPS detects you're outside the polygon, it forcibly alerts you: YOU ARE OUTSIDE THE RANGE FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES. 911 AND EMERGENCY RESCUE NOT GUARANTEED."
I got thinking about this also because of how emergency services are often perceived as being some universal guarantee, taken for granted in the modern world. I wonder if people don't really grok that they're completely outside of the safety net they grew up in.
I like how your proposed alert notification is in capitalized letters and post hoc. "DUE TO RECENT LEGISLATION RESTRICTIONS ON CELL TOWER PERMITS IN WILDLIFE AREAS, AT&T HAS DETECTED THAT YOU ARE NO LONGER WITHIN OUR PLATINUM CELL TOWER COVERAGE AREA. YOU ARE NOW IN THE IMPENDING DEATH NO EMERGENCY SERVICE ZONE, GOODBYE."
That's how our amber alerts are presented. Alongside a forced max volume klaxxon. It's quite the spectacle when a whole room of people's phones go off at the same time.
There are many abandoned vehicles littered all over Alaska.
As a local told me, these are “Alaskan storage containers”. There’s a small museum in Wasilla that has restored some of the abandoned vehicles of historic interest going back to the earliest made vehicles and planes.
“>> Have you been to the bus?
>> I have not. I've only been as far as the river. I went to the river to see it for myself when I was reporting on this whole pilgrimage phenomenon a few years ago and I watched a group of hikers cross that were headed to the bus and three of them were swept downstream and one of them almost drowned.“
A reporter who can’t figure out why people keep going to the bus sure had an easy time justifying why they themself went.
I consider the bus a sacred spot for everyone who wanted to escape the world and find themselves. That said, at this point, it truly is a place you go at your own peril, and if you die it's no one's fault but your own. Death is sad, but the dangers are well known by this point.
IIRC, the guy who gave him a ride to the start of the trail tried to give him a map that would have showed the cable not far from where he tried to ford on his way back, but was prevented by high water.
McCandless had some idiotic notion that the map would degrade the purity of his experience of nature, or something like that, so he refused.
How ridiculous that someone who was a fan of the book would die trying to ford the same river at the same place that stopped McCandless. Did they not read that part of the book where Krakauer decribed the cable, or did they just not remember it?
I don't see too much of an issue to be fair, experience comes from taking risks and surviving crises, not from staying home. And you take risks because you know people will help you if something bad happens.
Of course 2 trends are against it: the tribals who believe they are more legit than others to do the trek for some reason (like the hunters or locals), and the economists who believe taxes should pay for the army, not for rescuing citizen who had an accident, and that normal citizens who want to do that should pay an army of guides and sherpas who will iron out any issue. I don't subscribe to any of it, tribalism is a license to be an asshole, and guides tend to be only nice to wealthy clients.
The issue as I see it is, that they put the people, who have to rescue them in unnecessary danger as well as potentially drawing them from other places they might be needed at.
There are other ways to grow, that don't put others in danger, so I personally see this as something quite stupid.
I don't agree with this line of reasoning. Every time you take your car, you put pedestrians and bikes in danger, and when a car hurt them it take EMTs away from the heart attacks at home (which I guess it the societal goal). Truth is, accidents individually happen so rarely that we just think that it's ok to drive a car. Here is the deal: as seen from the EMTs point of view, there are freaking people hurt every single day and it's a nightmare out there.
Same with hiking in remote places, it's a bit more dangerous, but still most of the time you don't die (I'd venture to argue that the average number of death per person is only one), so the averaged risk is quite low still, but every time you slip on a rock, cross a sketchy river, etc. You gain experience that will further reduce the risk.
When people drive, we expect them to have a certain level of competence and for their car to be in good working order - there are unavoidable risks to driving, but society expects people to take reasonable steps to mitigate those risks. It's the same principle if you're going into the wilderness. Going into the back country without the right training and equipment is just stupid and selfish.
Well, there is risk taking and risk taking. If you take a calculated risk taking into account weather, skills, environment etc.. and then something happens that's what you have first responders for.
If, on the other hand, you take risks you are not equipped to handle and judge due a lack of skill and ability and you need than first responders you are acting irresponsible. You might also end up in much more dangerous situations then the above mentioned group of people again increasing risk for first responders. You always hear about people unable to judge risks in the Alps.
Here is the deal: when people die in the back country, they will always be judged by wether they lived there or not. If they were from somewhere else, they will be insulted in death as careless tourists, and if they were local, it will be deemed a terrible act of god. Nobody is able to access the skill level and preparedness of dead people across a news article. It's a buffet of prejudice. They will tell you of careless tourists walking somewhere they shouldn't in sneakers, but a local climbing in sneakers will deemed skilled.
I have seen mountaineering guides going solo in ice climbing higher than their clients, going in the mountains in sneakers (which I'm not sure is stupid in the circumstances, but imagine a news article describing a dead tourist with sneakers on their feet).
And you can be criticized in many ways: calling for help to early (that was not very dangerous), too late (you didn't recognize the subtle beginning of a crisis and you let it unfold), too much, not enough. It's all about the identity of the dead and the "angle" journalists will have chosen.
Your second paragraph is describing exactly what I meant. Mountaineering guide =\= tourist. One has the experience the other doesn't.
And journalists usually get it wrong anyway because they cannot judge the risks themselves properly. And those few that do, locals or not doesn't matter, write different articles.
And just by the way. Assuming all locals have experience in their wilds is such a fallacy. Generally speaking the average level of knowledge might be higher, on an individual level you will always have your locals, e.g. the Alps, who are unable to climb, judge avalanche risks or even just zhe weather.
>> don't see too much of an issue to be fair, experience comes from taking risks and surviving crises, not from staying home.
Are you stating that no experience can be had without risk and/or surviving a crisis? I am troubled, wondering if some of the experiences I have had have indeed not been experiences at all.
>>And you take risks because you know people will help you if something bad happens.
That seems patently absurd, plenty of seasoned people take risks knowing that that no one will bail them out, and they will need to rely solely on their own resources.
So this seems particularly dumb if thats the inspiration