How Chris McCandless Died: An Update(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
How Chris McCandless Died: An Update
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/chris-mccandless-died-update
12 comments
I have empathy for McCandless, he didn't deserve to die and I wish he hadn't. But clearly he didn't know what he was getting into, didn't prepare and unwittingly contributed to his own death. It's not a judgment about his character. He wasn't a knucklehead, he was probably fairly intelligent.
He was probably just unaware, like most people, how hard it is to subsist in nature alone, and how harsh the beautiful landscape can be.
In the right context, ignorance is a kind of superpower. When you survive and it all works out, you are a genius. Many successful people start their story with: "If I had known what I was getting into, I would never have started..."
So yeah, I kind of admire this ignorance ... in other people. I am WAY too self-conscious and introspective to embark on some enterprise where I know that I know nothing.
Oh, and the poisonous seed thing - he was just eating a plant whose edibility was not established. I dunno, maybe people think nature is benevolent, and sure I can think of a bunch of edible plants in the woods near my house ... but I can think of plenty that are poisonous, or mildly toxic, or carcinogenic, or indigestible, or otherwise liable to disagree with you. He didn't know if he should or shouldn't eat it. He was rolling the dice. If you roll the dice and you live, you're a genius and in a few years you get to write your memoirs as the next Thoreau.
He was probably just unaware, like most people, how hard it is to subsist in nature alone, and how harsh the beautiful landscape can be.
In the right context, ignorance is a kind of superpower. When you survive and it all works out, you are a genius. Many successful people start their story with: "If I had known what I was getting into, I would never have started..."
So yeah, I kind of admire this ignorance ... in other people. I am WAY too self-conscious and introspective to embark on some enterprise where I know that I know nothing.
Oh, and the poisonous seed thing - he was just eating a plant whose edibility was not established. I dunno, maybe people think nature is benevolent, and sure I can think of a bunch of edible plants in the woods near my house ... but I can think of plenty that are poisonous, or mildly toxic, or carcinogenic, or indigestible, or otherwise liable to disagree with you. He didn't know if he should or shouldn't eat it. He was rolling the dice. If you roll the dice and you live, you're a genius and in a few years you get to write your memoirs as the next Thoreau.
"But clearly he didn't know what he was getting into
didn't prepare and unwittingly contributed to his own
death."
"If this adventure proves fatal and you don't ever hear from me again I want you to know your (sic) a great man. I now walk into the wild"
And earlier he asks his friend to return all mail to sender for the foreseeable future.
That and everything else I've ever read has made me think he was entirely aware of the potential for danger in the wilderness. He walked in & did it any-ways.
Plenty people look to test themselves in nature's crucible with minimal preparation, fully cognisant of the risks. Sometimes they lose. I think looking down upon them with the rosy vision of decades hindsight from the comfort & safety of home does them a disservice. Their lives, their choices.
I hope Chris found what he was looking for.
Alternatively, he was a clueless kid who fantasized about disappearing into the wilderness ala Hatchet or My Side of the Mountain. Cancelling your mail and talking melodramatically does not mean you intend to die, just that you intend to cut all ties.
I have a friend from high school who, at 40 years old, had an amicable divorce with his wife so he could go do something similar to Christopher's adventure, but here in the backwoods of Georgia. His philosophy is that we're all going to die sometime, so we should live the life we always wanted to live on this "ball of dirt and water hurtling around a ball of fire" as he puts it. I envy him, as I'm also an avid outdoorsman who never gets to go outdoors anymore (from the house to the car to work and back does not count as "outdoors"). My friend studied flora and fauna for years, both because he loves nature and in preparation for the rest of his life on his own.
So far he's been out there for the better part of a year, sleeping in a bivy sack, eating what nature provides, riding his mountain bike and towing his trailer with his few worldly possessions, a backwoods hobo by choice. He's documenting the entire adventure and plans to write about it. He is fully aware of successful adventurers before him, as well as those who died to soon like McCandless. Who knows how long he'll live this life, but he looks to McCandless as an inspiration, not a "clueless kid", and he's doing just fine.
So far he's been out there for the better part of a year, sleeping in a bivy sack, eating what nature provides, riding his mountain bike and towing his trailer with his few worldly possessions, a backwoods hobo by choice. He's documenting the entire adventure and plans to write about it. He is fully aware of successful adventurers before him, as well as those who died to soon like McCandless. Who knows how long he'll live this life, but he looks to McCandless as an inspiration, not a "clueless kid", and he's doing just fine.
Your friend spent years studying. He also had the sense to pick one of the most hospitable and temperate locales in North America. And even in a friendly environment, he acknowledges that he needs more supplies than he could easily carry. I bet he also had multiple plans for bailing out if events went really sour. Just from what little you've said, he sounds responsible, level-headed and practical. He could probably accomplish anything he sets his mind to, and I look forward to buying his book.
But other than living outdoors, your friend has little in common with McCandless.
(Nothing says you can't consider someone to be both clueless and an inspiration. I consider all of history to be an inspiration to do better, including the less-clueful half of the past.)
But other than living outdoors, your friend has little in common with McCandless.
(Nothing says you can't consider someone to be both clueless and an inspiration. I consider all of history to be an inspiration to do better, including the less-clueful half of the past.)
"But clearly he didn't know what he was getting into, didn't prepare and unwittingly contributed to his own death."
Another way to look at it is that he knew there were unknown risks of various kinds, and he decided to prepare as well as he could and go anyway.
Another way to look at it is that he knew there were unknown risks of various kinds, and he decided to prepare as well as he could and go anyway.
Except he didn't prepare as well as he could.
IIRC there was a ferry or similar a few miles upstream of where he was "trapped" (because he didn't expect the river to swell as it did) and died.
Learning about seasonal weather and checking alternate routes are a basic part of wilderness survival.
IIRC there was a ferry or similar a few miles upstream of where he was "trapped" (because he didn't expect the river to swell as it did) and died.
Learning about seasonal weather and checking alternate routes are a basic part of wilderness survival.
But that's the whole point - he wanted to take a risk. That's why the story is a moving poetic statement. If he'd done it the sensible way there wouldn't be a book about it.
Going skydiving is taking a risk. Going skydiving without training and without checking your equipment is just being an idiot. It isn't noble or poetic it is just dumb.
The only thing sadder than McCandless pointless depth is the people whose own lives are so devoid of meaning that they seek inspiration from a fool who killed himself.
The only thing sadder than McCandless pointless depth is the people whose own lives are so devoid of meaning that they seek inspiration from a fool who killed himself.
[deleted]
I've lost two friends in Alaska, one with a similar story, both with significant outdoors experience and neither was ever found. I myself worked in both territories around the time when McCandless died.
Many of us were fascinated by this story because it hit so close to home; that Krakauer continues to examine this definitely hits the empathy and sympathy button, and also the fascination that McCandless was not stupid but had the huevos to do what he did, and sadness with how it ended.
Many of us were fascinated by this story because it hit so close to home; that Krakauer continues to examine this definitely hits the empathy and sympathy button, and also the fascination that McCandless was not stupid but had the huevos to do what he did, and sadness with how it ended.
If you found 'Into The Wild' interesting, make sure to checkout 'Into Thin Air' from the same author. It's about a summit attempt of Everest that went awry and is awesome.
Edit: come to think of it, I've read pretty much everything that Jon Krakauer has written. The guy's grocery lists are probably well thought out and have a compelling narrative.
Edit: come to think of it, I've read pretty much everything that Jon Krakauer has written. The guy's grocery lists are probably well thought out and have a compelling narrative.
Pretty much. I actually found "Into the Wild" to be among his least interesting--probably because I couldn't really identify with McCandless."Into Thin Air" is the book that put him on the mainstream map and it's awesome. "Under the Banner of Heaven" is particularly noteworthy as well--although I found the historical parts the more interesting. (The modern story was mostly just depressing.)
I felt the A-story / B-story narrative split in "Banner Of Heaven" made the read a little too disjointed for my taste. Just when the A story is getting good, the B story comes along and stops it dead in its tracks. Then, vice versa. Incidentally, I also found the historical narrative infinitely more fascinating than the present-day narrative. It is exceedingly hard to pull off an A/B structure when both A and B are given nearly equal weight. One of them needs to be subordinated to the other. Krakauer does the equal-weight A/B better than most, but in some ways I think it's just a fundamentally suboptimal approach.
"Into Thin Air" is a fantastic read. It's got its flaws, but they're very minor and quickly forgotten.
"Into Thin Air" is a fantastic read. It's got its flaws, but they're very minor and quickly forgotten.
What flaws, out of interest?
Krakauer tends to repeat himself. To some extent, this is necessary. For instance, because there are so many people to keep track of in the book, and because some of those people have the same names, he'll often introduce or describe them several times. That much seems forgivable, even helpful. Occasionally he'll also repeat descriptions. Everyone does it, but when he repeats particularly memorable or creative descriptive phrases, they jump out at you.
These are very minor literary lapses, of course, and I don't want to make a mountain out of them. It's a damned good book, and I should be so lucky to write something like it some day.
These are very minor literary lapses, of course, and I don't want to make a mountain out of them. It's a damned good book, and I should be so lucky to write something like it some day.
If you read "Into Thin Air", make sure you also read "The Death Zone" by Matt Dickinson - an interestingly different perspective on the same event.
Where Men Win Glory is a really great book by Krakauer.
All the controversy lately over American Sniper has me wondering where the Hollywood drama about Patrick Tillman is.
All the controversy lately over American Sniper has me wondering where the Hollywood drama about Patrick Tillman is.
"... has me wondering where the Hollywood drama about Patrick Tillman is. ..."
10 years on and this story still resonates ~ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/20/10-year...
his legacy in providing scholarships for vets & spouses http://pattillmanfoundation.org/about-us is a big FU to those in Government and the Military who tried to cover up the how he died.
10 years on and this story still resonates ~ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/20/10-year...
his legacy in providing scholarships for vets & spouses http://pattillmanfoundation.org/about-us is a big FU to those in Government and the Military who tried to cover up the how he died.
You mean this one: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568334/ ?
(Or maybe you're specifically referring to a hollywood-ized drama, not a documentary)
(Or maybe you're specifically referring to a hollywood-ized drama, not a documentary)
Yes, that's a documentary.
I love Krakauer's style of writing and have read all of his books. His writing style reminds a lot of Stephen Ambrose.
If you like Into The Wild, you might also like One Man's Wilderness about Richard Proenneke: http://www.amazon.com/One-Mans-Wilderness-Alaskan-Odyssey-eb...
If you like Into The Wild, you might also like One Man's Wilderness about Richard Proenneke: http://www.amazon.com/One-Mans-Wilderness-Alaskan-Odyssey-eb...
Follow up with The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest by Anatoli Boukreev and G. Weston DeWalt.
Great alternative perspective.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/925367.The_Climb
Great alternative perspective.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/925367.The_Climb
If you liked "Into Thin Air" you should read "The White Spider" about Heinreich Harrer (who was the inspiration for Brat Pitt's character in "Seven Years in Tibet")
I read everything he writes. The only time I have had a problem with anything he said was in "Under the Banner of Heaven" he partially blamed the Mormon church for the kidnap and rape of Elizabeth Smart. I suspect that the guy that kidnapped her would have been a piece of shit no matter what religion he was born into.
I think his point was more about the indoctrination and conditioning of young women in the LDS system.
are people really born pieces of shit though? or are they molded into one?
"Endurance" is another one well worth reading.
This is pretty awesome. Clausen seemed a bit snotty about the original theory not being in a peer-reviewed journal. Now the followup is, and the underlying science also blows a hole in one of Clausen's own papers. He messed with the wrong guy. Citizen science FTW.
I don't think it's snotty to be skeptical of the results. After all, their original hypothesis turned out to be incorrect. ODAP was not present in the seeds.
Because the author took Clausen's consideration seriously, they were able to uncover their mistake and correct it.
Because the author took Clausen's consideration seriously, they were able to uncover their mistake and correct it.
It's not snotty to be skeptical, but it is snotty to be "skeptical" because the theory comes from an amateur, and to go on about "highly technical and complicated" etc. That's pure appeal to authority, the error of which is amply demonstrated by the fact that one of Clausen's own papers got through peer review with the exact same mistake. Hopefully he has learned to address the science, instead of the source or the publication process, next time.
It would, however, be easy for a non-peer reviewed amateur to make a mistake. It's an appeal to authority, but in this case I don't believe it's a fallacy.
Furthermore, since peer review is fallible, I don't believe Clausen's identical mistake making it through peer review proves the process any less important.
Perhaps Clausen's criticisms were not well intended, but wouldn't any respectable scientist demand rigor before seriously considering such a hypothesis? After all, the burden of proof is not on Clausen.
Furthermore, since peer review is fallible, I don't believe Clausen's identical mistake making it through peer review proves the process any less important.
Perhaps Clausen's criticisms were not well intended, but wouldn't any respectable scientist demand rigor before seriously considering such a hypothesis? After all, the burden of proof is not on Clausen.
I'd like to chime in here.
The valuable thing isn't individual peer-reviewed papers, it's bodies of peer-reviewed works.
"Peer-review" as most people think of it -- the vetting of papers by a few reviewers before publication -- is the start of the process, not the end. Peer-review is what happens after your paper is published and your peers -- the people who read the papers you publish -- read your paper and discuss your paper and try and succeed or fail to replicate your results. A journal isn't "peer-reviewed" because a couple of schmucks read the paper before publication; that's just the scientific equivalent of Fizz-Buzz to avoid wasting everyone's time with obvious crap. It's "peer-reviewed" because it is widely and critically read by a large number of practitioners in a field.
You should never regard an individual paper uncritically just because it is published. Later, in light of a larger body of research, you might regard a paper as particularly insightful or seminal.
The valuable thing isn't individual peer-reviewed papers, it's bodies of peer-reviewed works.
"Peer-review" as most people think of it -- the vetting of papers by a few reviewers before publication -- is the start of the process, not the end. Peer-review is what happens after your paper is published and your peers -- the people who read the papers you publish -- read your paper and discuss your paper and try and succeed or fail to replicate your results. A journal isn't "peer-reviewed" because a couple of schmucks read the paper before publication; that's just the scientific equivalent of Fizz-Buzz to avoid wasting everyone's time with obvious crap. It's "peer-reviewed" because it is widely and critically read by a large number of practitioners in a field.
You should never regard an individual paper uncritically just because it is published. Later, in light of a larger body of research, you might regard a paper as particularly insightful or seminal.
This is a wonderfully clear explanation. Well said.
To generalize a little more: science isn't about single pieces of data or single experiments. Science is about the process. Experiment/data -> idea -> experiment/data -> refined idea -> ... until the idea and the data match to the greatest possible degree (a temporary state of affairs, until science in other areas makes it possible to refine measurements even more tightly.)
A single paper, even one with solid methodology, extensive data, and clear patterns, is just one part of science. Replication, refinement, methodological improvements, identification of weaknesses, etc. are what make the whole institution of science so powerful.
To generalize a little more: science isn't about single pieces of data or single experiments. Science is about the process. Experiment/data -> idea -> experiment/data -> refined idea -> ... until the idea and the data match to the greatest possible degree (a temporary state of affairs, until science in other areas makes it possible to refine measurements even more tightly.)
A single paper, even one with solid methodology, extensive data, and clear patterns, is just one part of science. Replication, refinement, methodological improvements, identification of weaknesses, etc. are what make the whole institution of science so powerful.
The mirror twins of ad hominem and ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) are always fallacies, regardless of person or circumstances. To say that certain people should get away with them is itself an appeal to authority. In logic, science, or debate, the identity of the person making or disputing a claim is irrelevant. If Clausen had a concern about the data, he should have said so. If he had a concern about the reasoning applied to that data, he should have said so. That would have been "demanding rigor" as you put it, but he did neither. Instead he addressed identity, and that's where he came off as snotty.
Appeal to authority may be a fallacy in strictly formal logical reasoning, but it's trivially shown in probabilistic reasoning (which is the core of scientific reasoning -- reasoning under uncertainty) that if the data supports experts being right in disagreements on claims more often than non-experts, then an expert making a claim provides at least weak evidence in favor compared to a non-expert's opposition, knowing nothing else about the claim's veracity. Unless you're arguing by trading Coq proofs, it might help to consider a probabilistic approach for natural language arguments with degrees of informality and stop fighting over the various fallacies that don't really apply outside of strict formal logic arguments and instead spend time seeking the truth. For more, see: http://www.gwern.net/docs/statistics/2003-korb.pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mike_Oaksford/publicatio...
http://www.pfeifer-research.de/pdf/pfeifer08rh.pdf
I can see how Clausen comes off as snotty. But his response is pretty neutral, even if he praises peer review as a filter beyond its actual merits. He sees a lack of appropriate effort to establish the claim from a nobody, why should he not be skeptical of such claims in general? It's the same heuristic people like Aaronson make on being highly skeptical of the latest P==NP or P!=NP proof uploaded to arxiv.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mike_Oaksford/publicatio...
http://www.pfeifer-research.de/pdf/pfeifer08rh.pdf
I can see how Clausen comes off as snotty. But his response is pretty neutral, even if he praises peer review as a filter beyond its actual merits. He sees a lack of appropriate effort to establish the claim from a nobody, why should he not be skeptical of such claims in general? It's the same heuristic people like Aaronson make on being highly skeptical of the latest P==NP or P!=NP proof uploaded to arxiv.
He did have a concern about the data. His concern that was it was not peer-reviewed.
Had the data come from someone with a proven track record in the field, he may have found it worth his time to peer review it himself.
Appeal to authority is not always a fallacy. It would have been fallacious if he was outright denying or accepting a hypothesis as being the logical conclusion based on one's standing. All that I read from it, however, was that he had a hard time believing it, and would not spend the time to look into the data personally, but that it should be reviewed.
I don't think it's illogical to take more seriously the hypothesis of someone with a proven track record of good research.
Had the data come from someone with a proven track record in the field, he may have found it worth his time to peer review it himself.
Appeal to authority is not always a fallacy. It would have been fallacious if he was outright denying or accepting a hypothesis as being the logical conclusion based on one's standing. All that I read from it, however, was that he had a hard time believing it, and would not spend the time to look into the data personally, but that it should be reviewed.
I don't think it's illogical to take more seriously the hypothesis of someone with a proven track record of good research.
If he couldn't spend the time to examine it, he should have just said that instead of taking the time to blather about journalistic vs. academic review processes. Clearly he did have the time; he just used it poorly.
Your argument is interesting, but it seems to boil down to dismissing the entire system of peer reviewed journals. If they can't be appealed to, and everything needs to be independently researched based on personal expertise, then they have no purpose. Would you agree with that?
I took his meaning to be that appealing to peer reviewed journals as an "authority" is what is wrong. The value of the peer review system is the rigorous process and the continuing
search for the truth.
> In logic, science, or debate, the identity of the person making or disputing a claim is irrelevant.
Are you describing logic/science/debate as you believe it to be or as you believe it should be? If the latter, are you suggesting ending peer review?
Are you describing logic/science/debate as you believe it to be or as you believe it should be? If the latter, are you suggesting ending peer review?
[deleted]
I quite enjoyed how the author quoted, “I would be much more convinced if I was reading the report from a credible peer-reviewed professional.”, without criticising the quote themselves. The reader is left to decide on their own that the quote is douchey.
The meat of Clausen's paper isn't really wrong - he just drew the wrong conclusions by making an unwarranted inference. He showed that Hedysarum mackenziei / alpinum do not contain significant levels of alkaloids, and that they do not inhibit bacterial growth.
He deduced that this "strongly suggested" they were not toxic. He was wrong because the plants contain a non-alkaloid compound that is toxic to mammals (and presumably not bacteria). So there is a lesson here about what kind of conclusions you can draw from scientific data.
He deduced that this "strongly suggested" they were not toxic. He was wrong because the plants contain a non-alkaloid compound that is toxic to mammals (and presumably not bacteria). So there is a lesson here about what kind of conclusions you can draw from scientific data.
I don't think your read on Clausen is accurate.
Krakauer's excerpt of Cole's article was poorly done. If you go to the source article, Clausen says,
“First, it seems like a rather remarkably lucky shot in the dark for a person to suspect the presence of a specific toxin on so little evidence," he wrote. "Couple this with the observation that ODAP is only reported in certain plants of the genus lathyrus which is not the genus hedysarum and the conclusions are even more remarkable (though not impossible). I would be much more convinced if I was reading the report from a credible peer-reviewed professional journal such as the Journal of Natural Products or equivalent. I have often heard a key indicator of bad science that is highly suspect is having its results published in the popular media."
...
"Again, I don't make any claims that the report is wrong since I have no data to analyze, but I am skeptical and will remain so until I see a better forum for the results to be published in." [1]
which to me sounds reasonable and, as a professional scientist, sounds just like what I (and I expect, my colleagues) would say. The peer review process isn't perfect, but it is consistently superior to the crap that is scientific journalism appearing outside of peer reviewed journals. Here's why, and why I don't understand why you would hold Krakauer as an example of citizen science.
Krakauer made (by his own admission) a "rash intuitive leap" [2] that an unidentified alkaloid contributed to McCandless' death, based on one of McCandless' journal entries and unpublished preliminary research by Clausen. As an aside, if one wants to piss off a scientist, that's a good way to go about it. When Clausen completes his research and finds the mystery alkaloid theory doesn't work, Krakauer intuits that a mystery toxic mold must have been involved, a theory he announces on Oprah and NPR. This second theory doesn't hold up (as was demonstrated by Clausen, again). Despite your conjecture, it sounds like Clausen actually investigated Krakauer's theories, up to a point. Krakauer then latches on to ODAP, which was close but still not there. His fourth theory may be correct, but Krakauer disseminated a lot of incorrect information along the way. I wonder, did he publish retractions as a professional scientist would?
I'm not sure why you would hold Krakauer's methodology as "citizen science FTW", but I'm interested to hear.
[1]: http://www.adn.com/article/20130917/krakauers-wild-theory-mc... [2]: http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/how-chris-mccandl...
Krakauer's excerpt of Cole's article was poorly done. If you go to the source article, Clausen says,
“First, it seems like a rather remarkably lucky shot in the dark for a person to suspect the presence of a specific toxin on so little evidence," he wrote. "Couple this with the observation that ODAP is only reported in certain plants of the genus lathyrus which is not the genus hedysarum and the conclusions are even more remarkable (though not impossible). I would be much more convinced if I was reading the report from a credible peer-reviewed professional journal such as the Journal of Natural Products or equivalent. I have often heard a key indicator of bad science that is highly suspect is having its results published in the popular media."
...
"Again, I don't make any claims that the report is wrong since I have no data to analyze, but I am skeptical and will remain so until I see a better forum for the results to be published in." [1]
which to me sounds reasonable and, as a professional scientist, sounds just like what I (and I expect, my colleagues) would say. The peer review process isn't perfect, but it is consistently superior to the crap that is scientific journalism appearing outside of peer reviewed journals. Here's why, and why I don't understand why you would hold Krakauer as an example of citizen science.
Krakauer made (by his own admission) a "rash intuitive leap" [2] that an unidentified alkaloid contributed to McCandless' death, based on one of McCandless' journal entries and unpublished preliminary research by Clausen. As an aside, if one wants to piss off a scientist, that's a good way to go about it. When Clausen completes his research and finds the mystery alkaloid theory doesn't work, Krakauer intuits that a mystery toxic mold must have been involved, a theory he announces on Oprah and NPR. This second theory doesn't hold up (as was demonstrated by Clausen, again). Despite your conjecture, it sounds like Clausen actually investigated Krakauer's theories, up to a point. Krakauer then latches on to ODAP, which was close but still not there. His fourth theory may be correct, but Krakauer disseminated a lot of incorrect information along the way. I wonder, did he publish retractions as a professional scientist would?
I'm not sure why you would hold Krakauer's methodology as "citizen science FTW", but I'm interested to hear.
[1]: http://www.adn.com/article/20130917/krakauers-wild-theory-mc... [2]: http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/how-chris-mccandl...
"The death of Chris McCandless should serve as a caveat to other foragers: Even when some parts of a plant are known to be edible, other parts of the same species may contain dangerous concentrations of toxic compounds."
Definitely, the most obvious example is potatoes. The fruit and other parts contain solanine. In general there is a great amount of danger around us, within 100 square meters of my home I can recognize at least 5/6 toxic species, so when one learns to eat a plant, it is important to also learn how all the similar plans that are dangerous look like, and what part of the plans are edible and what not.
Definitely, the most obvious example is potatoes. The fruit and other parts contain solanine. In general there is a great amount of danger around us, within 100 square meters of my home I can recognize at least 5/6 toxic species, so when one learns to eat a plant, it is important to also learn how all the similar plans that are dangerous look like, and what part of the plans are edible and what not.
Discussion on the original: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6376498
There are many hooks in the story and the "whodunit" or in this case 'whatdunit' is a hook that keeps a lot of readers through the story. I don't have a big log of books I've read in my life as compared to some, but this was one that I would pick up and devour and then push away from me upset. I'd stare at it thinking I didn't want to read more of the tragedy then I'd pick it up again. I can't think of any other book like that I've felt the same with.
That Chris' story has a proper resolution is important to the author and for those of us who took Chris' journey by reading Krakauer's book. There are still plenty of mysteries within it aside from the cause of death. Why did he do what he did? There's a theory out there that he may have been suffering an onset of schizophrenia. We have a good record of what he said to people and his journaling, but we will always be limited by what remains of that.
He was in many ways a very amazing person. If you recall he sought to 'kill the false being within' him. His seeming desperation to seek his most authentic self through a journey and a physical and emotional withdrawal from his family and familiar lifestyle (as I understand, which I may not) is something that is as relatable as it is strange and unique.
Nuggets of the idea you hear elsewhere by some pretty amazing individuals. For example, I have loads of respect for Bruce Lee. He was a celebrity and a person of deep thought but of massive action in his life. He made a point in an interview of the challenge to being able to actually express yourself honestly in what you do. To anyone seeking authenticity in themselves rather than whatever expectations or reactions real or imagined the rest of the world may have, to be completely free of that mindset.
I hope Chris believed he succeeded in the end. But I selfishly wish a lot more that he would have maybe almost succeeded but instead came back to tell the rest of us about it in his own words.
That Chris' story has a proper resolution is important to the author and for those of us who took Chris' journey by reading Krakauer's book. There are still plenty of mysteries within it aside from the cause of death. Why did he do what he did? There's a theory out there that he may have been suffering an onset of schizophrenia. We have a good record of what he said to people and his journaling, but we will always be limited by what remains of that.
He was in many ways a very amazing person. If you recall he sought to 'kill the false being within' him. His seeming desperation to seek his most authentic self through a journey and a physical and emotional withdrawal from his family and familiar lifestyle (as I understand, which I may not) is something that is as relatable as it is strange and unique.
Nuggets of the idea you hear elsewhere by some pretty amazing individuals. For example, I have loads of respect for Bruce Lee. He was a celebrity and a person of deep thought but of massive action in his life. He made a point in an interview of the challenge to being able to actually express yourself honestly in what you do. To anyone seeking authenticity in themselves rather than whatever expectations or reactions real or imagined the rest of the world may have, to be completely free of that mindset.
I hope Chris believed he succeeded in the end. But I selfishly wish a lot more that he would have maybe almost succeeded but instead came back to tell the rest of us about it in his own words.
Why doesn't someone just feed wild potatoes to a few rats for a few weeks and see if they die? Did we forget how to actually do science?
[deleted]
> And because many people—both admirers of McCandless and his detractors—regard “Into the Wild” as a cautionary tale, it’s important to know as much as possible about how McCandless actually may have died."
Cautionary tales are just that, tales. It's entertainment pure and simple.
Cautionary tales have never taught, if anything they do the opposite and create wrong thought patterns.
We don't need to know to not go off to live in the crazy wilderness unprepared. Eat less cheese burgers is a boring story(Morgan Spurlock aside) but a better lesson.
The fact people seem to have the need to self justify that they are entertained about stories of someone else's downfall is an interesting condition.
Cautionary tales are just that, tales. It's entertainment pure and simple.
Cautionary tales have never taught, if anything they do the opposite and create wrong thought patterns.
We don't need to know to not go off to live in the crazy wilderness unprepared. Eat less cheese burgers is a boring story(Morgan Spurlock aside) but a better lesson.
The fact people seem to have the need to self justify that they are entertained about stories of someone else's downfall is an interesting condition.
Actually, the least interesting part of the story for me was that he died from poisoning. I was entertained by the rest of the story, that he decided to quit everything and leave everything behind, to start a new life of some description. I wouldn't describe that as a story of someone's downfall. I'm not sure I would go as far as to say the entire film was about someone's downfall and I find it rather strange that you do too. It was a story of being free.
I personally think the ending was an important contrast to the beginning from a traditional story perspective. Has he succeeded would it have been a movie....
I do agree the beginning was a great story about being free and what I enjoyed most.
I do agree the beginning was a great story about being free and what I enjoyed most.
i saw the movie and thought the alexander supertramp guy came across like a huge asshole.
i also watch pro wrestling.
i also watch pro wrestling.
Do the exact mechanics of Chris McCandless's death really matter? He didn't take the wilderness seriously and that's what got him killed. We shouldn't romanticize his stupidity.
Are you suggesting that the lesson from his death is 'take the wilderness seriously' and simultaneously arguing that a discovery about whether or not a particular potentially-edible plant is poisonous is not worth knowing?
Well for those that do take the wilderness seriously, as something of a tautology, yes it matters.
The last sentence of the article:
"And because many people—both admirers of McCandless and his detractors—regard “Into the Wild” as a cautionary tale, it’s important to know as much as possible about how McCandless actually may have died."
"And because many people—both admirers of McCandless and his detractors—regard “Into the Wild” as a cautionary tale, it’s important to know as much as possible about how McCandless actually may have died."
Does it really matter whether he was poisoned by one chemical or another, or simply starved to death? Either way, the cautionary tale of against deciding to go live in the woods without adequate preparation stands.
Well, I think it's worth finding out just for the sake of knowing.
But as a cautionary tale, yeah it still matters. Say you meet some guy planning on taking this same "adventure", you show him Into the Wild, he says "no problem, I've been hunting and trapping for 10 years, no way I'll starve".
People who just think "It's a bad idea in general, I don't need to know exactly how he died" were probably not in any danger of making the same mistake. If you want to convince people on the fence, you need specifics.
But as a cautionary tale, yeah it still matters. Say you meet some guy planning on taking this same "adventure", you show him Into the Wild, he says "no problem, I've been hunting and trapping for 10 years, no way I'll starve".
People who just think "It's a bad idea in general, I don't need to know exactly how he died" were probably not in any danger of making the same mistake. If you want to convince people on the fence, you need specifics.
Whether he died because he either ate a poisonous plant or starved, the issue is the same: lack of proper preparation for a food supply.
Many people view foraging for food in the wilderness to be a perfectly adequate plan for having a food supply. If the theory is correct, he didn't starve to death because of poor planning, he starved to death because he ate something poisonous, which then prevented him from foraging for food.
You seem to be implying that foraging isn't an OK way to feed oneself in the wilderness.
You seem to be implying that foraging isn't an OK way to feed oneself in the wilderness.
You're right. But nobody ever died because they avoided the poisonous berries.
The story of how he died is a good cautionary tale, and the story of how the exact cause was discovered is also interesting.
The story of how he died is a good cautionary tale, and the story of how the exact cause was discovered is also interesting.
It's kind of how people are scared of dying in plane crashes but not in car crashes - the illusion of control. One easily imagines doing something to avoid a car death but not a plane one.
I think the same applies here: Death by starvation feels easier to avoid to a layman wilderness expert: forage more, hunt effectively, conserve supplies better, etc.
But death via an obscure chemical even while in possession of a book on edible seeds...that's scary and much more likely to give one reservations about their confidence.
I think the same applies here: Death by starvation feels easier to avoid to a layman wilderness expert: forage more, hunt effectively, conserve supplies better, etc.
But death via an obscure chemical even while in possession of a book on edible seeds...that's scary and much more likely to give one reservations about their confidence.
FTA: "The death of Chris McCandless should serve as a caveat to other foragers: Even when some parts of a plant are known to be edible, other parts of the same species may contain dangerous concentrations of toxic compounds. Additionally, there may be seasonal, as well as ecotypic, variations in the concentrations of L-canavanine between various communities of H. alpinum."
Thanks, I read the article too.
That different parts of a plant may differ in toxicity is surprising at all given that some of the most common edible food such as tomatoes and potatoes exhibit similar characteristics.
That different parts of a plant may differ in toxicity is surprising at all given that some of the most common edible food such as tomatoes and potatoes exhibit similar characteristics.
I suppose it doesn't matter if you're never going to encounter the poisonous seeds in your life, but in general it is valuable to know what will kill you and what will not.
People always omit the fact that he had survived in the same location for more than 100 days and had actually decided to leave but was prevented from doing so by a flooding river. Makes him seem a little less stupid.
>Makes him seem a little less stupid.
If he would have brought a map or done a little more preparation he could have taken the hand operated tram 8/10ths of a mile away. He's stupid.
If he would have brought a map or done a little more preparation he could have taken the hand operated tram 8/10ths of a mile away. He's stupid.
Here is a quote from the book to reiterate my point ('Roman' is Roman Dial, of which more can be found out here: https://www.travelalaska.com/Experience%20Alaska/Alaska%20Lo...):
I bring up McCandless's hubris and the dumb mistakes he made-the
two or three readily avoidable blunders that ended up costing him
his life. "Sure, he screwed up," Roman answers, "but I admire what
he was trying to do. Living completely off the land like that, month
after month, is incredibly difficult. I've never done it. And I'd bet
you that very few, if any, of the people who call McCandless
incompetent have ever done it either, not for more than a week or
two. Living in the interior bush for an extended period, subsisting
on nothing except what you hunt and gather-most people have no idea
how hard that actually is. And McCandless almost pulled it off.
"I guess I just can't help identifying with the guy," Roman allows
as he pokes the coals with a stick. "I hate to admit it, but not so
many years ago it could easily have been me in the same kind of
predicament. When I first started coming to Alaska, I think I was
probably a lot like McCandless: just as green, just as eager. And I'm
sure there are plenty of other Alaskans who had a lot in common with
McCandless when they first got here, too, including many of his
critics. Which is maybe why they're so hard on him. Maybe McCandless
reminds them a little too much of their former selves."[deleted]
Krakauer's arguments on this subject are based on conjecture and ignore facts. He conjectures that McCandless misidentified a plant he had been identifying for an extended time, for another plant. Unlikely. He makes claims without providing supporting evidence. Sorry, but saying "there is evidence that..." is not evidence. He states that eating this plant poisoned him to death, despite the fact that he died almost 3 weeks later. The autopsy ruled the death as starvation. The natural conclusion of extreme, extended calorie deficiency is starvation.
From http://www.alaskacommons.com/2013/09/22/what-everyone-is-get...:
"The forensic question “Were the seeds poisonous?” is of interest only because it sheds light on broader, more contentious question, expressed bluntly as “How stupid was Chris McCandless?” If, like Alaska Dispatch reporters Dermot Cole and Craig Medred (and again), you think McCandless was a clueless, crazy knucklehead, arrogant in his disdain for wild nature and its perils, then you want to think the seeds weren’t poisonous; the kid just died of starvation because he was too stupid/crazy/arrogant to make it to safety."
"But if, like Jon Krakauer (and, in the interest of full disclosure, like me), you have some level of empathy with or sympathy for McCandless, you want to think the seeds were poisonous—he was doing his best to survive a difficult enterprise and was done in because he consumed something that was not known to be poisonous until two decades after his death."