Being Risky as opposed to just being Plain Stupid

[Mock Turtle]

Having recently seen an episode of a TV programme, in the UK, and entitled - Close calls: on Camera - where members of the public are often shown to have been involved in life-threatening scenarios (often not of their choosing), and usually having fortunately survived such, I have to comment on one such. This involved base-jumping from (to me) an almost suicidal height of 200ft. Base-jumping basically entails free-falling from whatever height (often several hundred feet and often is thousands of feet) before opening a parachute or similar life-saver such that this opens before one impacts the ground. At a height of 200ft, this allows for very few errors, such that the operation to deploy the parachute is done immediately after jumping, and in the case of the guy doing this in the TV programme, a few minor errors almost cost him his life. He survived with some major injuries after impacting the ground before his parachute fully deployed to save him.

So of course he is going to carry on base-jumping - his life after all - and I hope he reconsiders the real risks involved, but what annoys me most about this programme is that there is no commentary as to how risky and stupid many of the activities or scenarios are in which many find themselves - in that many could have been avoided. I have done enough risky activities to know exactly what they entail - my death if I am careless or fail to appreciate the situations fully - but I really have to complain about a TV programme not presenting a true picture of what such behaviour often involves. This case was one such, where the margins were such as to make the activity rather stupid, in my view.

I can understand that many might feel the same way about many risky activities, but what would you regard as being on the stupid side of the fence rather than just being risky?

Why do so many risk their lives for what seems to be a simple thrill (such as base-jumping) - adrenalin junkie often being the term used to descibe such?

 

[sun rise]

The show should be called "Darwin Award Candidates".

Every few days I read about someone doing something really stupid and either dying, getting very injured or having a lucky escape. I was young and stupid once but never went that far. And of course such things are not limited to the young.

Cultures often channel that urge into adolescent rites of passage that are sometimes painful and difficult but not always. Maybe more of that is needed in today's world.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My daughter was assigned to read "Into Thin Air" last year in high school. It's an account from one survivor's perspective of a 1996 Mt. Everest climbing disaster that took the lives of 8 climbers. It sort of presents itself as this harrowing tale of survival, but in talking about it, my daughter and I agreed that it is more a story about what not to do with your life, how to stay safer, and in my opinion smarter in the choices you make. To sit there and write about how horrible a thing was when you deliberately put yourself there, knowing that all the things you experienced were the risks... it just reads like blatant stupidity to me.

 

[PureX]

Having recently seen an episode of a TV programme, in the UK, and entitled - Close calls: on Camera - where members of the public are often shown to have been involved in life-threatening scenarios (often not of their choosing), and usually having fortunately survived such, I have to comment on one such. This involved base-jumping from (to me) an almost suicidal height of 200ft. Base-jumping basically entails free-falling from whatever height (often several hundred feet and often is thousands of feet) before opening a parachute or similar life-saver such that this opens before one impacts the ground. At a height of 200ft, this allows for very few errors, such that the operation to deploy the parachute is done immediately after jumping, and in the case of the guy doing this in the TV programme, a few minor errors almost cost him his life. He survived with some major injuries after impacting the ground before his parachute fully deployed to save him.

So of course he is going to carry on base-jumping - his life after all - and I hope he reconsiders the real risks involved, but what annoys me most about this programme is that there is no commentary as to how risky and stupid many of the activities or scenarios are in which many find themselves - in that many could have been avoided. I have done enough risky activities to know exactly what they entail - my death if I am careless or fail to appreciate the situations fully - but I really have to complain about a TV programme not presenting a true picture of what such behaviour often involves. This case was one such, where the margins were such as to make the activity rather stupid, in my view.

It's all about the advertising, of course. The whole point is to keep your eyes on the screen until the next packet of ads.

 

[Heyo]

Why do so many risk their lives for what seems to be a simple thrill (such as base-jumping) - adrenalin junkie often being the term used to descibe such?

It is usually the males of a species who engage in risky behaviour. By advertising their "courage" they signal to the female that they don't fear danger and are thus likely to protect them and their offspring.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Look up an interview with alex honnold.. ever hear of him? He climbed el capitan without a rope or anything, it basically looks like a 3000 foot vertical wall

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's all about the advertising, of course. The whole point is to keep your eyes on the screen until the next packet of ads.

But this programme is on BBC, so no adverts, but I can see your point.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Look up an interview with alex honnold.. ever hear of him? He climbed el capitan without a rope or anything, it basically looks like a 3000 foot vertical wall

I saw the film. Having been a rock-climber, but at a very low level, I can appreciate what he did and his enormous skill, but he was essentially one mistake away from death on many occasions. His choice I suppose. I've rarely free-climbed anything like that but rock-climbers and mountaineers are often in the same situation, that is, not being roped and where a mistake could cost them their lives. Focus and skill tends to be why they don't die (and the climb being well within their ability), but his climb was just beyond anything done by even the top rock-climbers, in hardness and danger.

 

[PureX]

But this programme is on BBC, so no adverts, but I can see your point.

Yes. The infection of pushing cheap titillation to gain market share has spread to all forms of media.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes. The infection of pushing cheap titillation to gain market share has spread to all forms of media.

Well my peeve, since I mute all adverts on TV, is the trailer-trash that they insist on serving up continuously to inform us of what is coming up in the future - as if I can't look at programme schedules - and these are just as annoying as the adverts.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I saw the film. Having been a rock-climber, but at a very low level, I can appreciate what he did and his enormous skill, but he was essentially one mistake away from death on many occasions. His choice I suppose. I've rarely free-climbed anything like that but rock-climbers and mountaineers are often in the same situation, that is, not being roped and where a mistake could cost them their lives. Focus and skill tends to be why they don't die (and the climb being well within their ability), but his climb was just beyond anything done by even the top rock-climbers, in hardness and danger.

I'll have watch more on him myself , but if I recall, it's less about adrenaline for that guy than it is about zen-like self control. A burst of adrenaline is not something you might want if you are doing something like that, because that you might get too excited and make a mistake. Seems like it more about an extreme exercise in a sort of concrete mental fortitude, and therein might lie some kind of 'validation'

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'll have watch more on him myself , but if I recall, it's less about adrenaline for that guy than it is about zen-like self control. A burst of adrenaline is not something you might want if you are doing something like that, because that you might get too excited and make a mistake. Seems like it more about an extreme exercise in a sort of concrete mental fortitude, and therein might lie some kind of 'validation'

I think that is exactly right. I wouldn't know precisely since my climbing was never, and could never have been, at such a level, but the only experience I had even approaching such was on one climb when I just seemed to be unaware of what I was doing - more like a flow experience - in that the placing of the hands and feet was almost automatic and couldn't have been bettered. This climb was within my abilities and perhaps came from my confidence being quite high then. I think his climbing will mostly be like this, almost automatic, but when the hard moves come along - of which there were several apparently - he managed to remain calm and focused so as not to make any mistakes. I doubt there are many capable of such feats even with all the training and route reconnaissance done. And as you say, more a battle with oneself as much as displaying so much skill - and hence what he gets out of it. Quite remarkable though.

 

[Mock Turtle]

And this is another example of blatant stupidity - when the dangers are known whilst doing such, and with plenty of previous injuries:

Dorset: Three seriously injured cliff-jumping at Durdle Door in Dorset