Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006 - 11:27am PT
|
Perhaps it is time for one of my favorite climbing quotes of all time, from my favorite spiritual mentor.
"Technology is imposed on the land, but technique means conforming to the landscape. They work in opposite directions, one forcing passage while the other discovers it.
The goal of developing technique is to conform to the most improbable landscape by means of the greatest degree of skill and boldness supported by the least equipment."
Doug Robinson
Climb on!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006 - 03:46pm PT
|
Still waiting to hear the metaphysical foundations of these "ethical" facts. Is the metatheory going to be one of authority, rights, consequences, etc? All I'm hearing so far is lots of slop about "Well, we've tended to think of things like this.... so there's some weight of tradition," as though tradition or even consensus has ethical weight (if so, tell me the metatheory). I haven't heard anything yet to explain HOW (and related to that question, WHY) what we do to rocks counts as right or wrong. Lots of mutual back-patting, but nothing yet about ETHICS. If this is just a matter of "Lots of us LIKE x and DISLIKE y," then it's pretty uninteresting and really doesn't act (in anything approaching a rigorous way) to filter IN or OUT any particular routes or practices.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006 - 09:37pm PT
|
Ed, I thought we had gotten past the specifically WoS side of this question. We did not come into the Valley to put up a "visionary" climb, nor have WE ever thought it was visionary. We ourselves have never called the route "great" or "hard" or anything like that. OTHERS have said those things, but ALL we have ever said is the the route was not a "bolt/rivet ladder" or a "manufactured route." That we were correct about that much seems pretty much beyond dispute at this point, so can we get past that particular debate?
How the locals reacted has also been debated to death, and I do NOT want to resurrect that either. ALL I'm trying to do now is point out that there's lots of "ethics" talk, but I see no reason yet to think that anybody has any idea what they are talking about. Do you?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 12:56am PT
|
masbolter1 said: "but I see no reason yet to think that anybody has any idea what they are talking about."
Does that mean only you know what ethics is all about?
Somehow most people have a good feel for ethics as I can see. Ever ask the planet earth what she wants?
Maybe start really looking ........
|
|
Ultrabiker
Ice climber
Eastside
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 01:06am PT
|
This truly typifies "Bad Big Wall Ehtic's"! AHHHHHHHHH! Thanks Duece for this Classic!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 01:29am PT
|
Interesting. How does my making the statement that I haven't heard anything to suggest that people know what they are talking about imply that I do? Maybe I'm just an ethical skeptic.
And, Werner, "Start looking" to figure out what Mother Earth wants??? That's DEEEEP! Can you give me some initial clues? I've never thought to anthropomorphize the Earth, so it's going to be a stretch, and I will definitely need some help to get going! Perhaps you can start by explaining why I should think that the Earth wants anything at all.
Karma? Mother Earth? Robinson's statement? I still haven't heard ETHICS! BTW, I do know something about ethical THEORY, so I find it hilarious to hear WoS used as an exemplar of (some sort of) "ethics," when I have yet to hear WHAT that is. Exactly WHAT ethic is WoS an example OF?
Let's take Robinson's statement. Surely, Ed, you're not treating this statement as an ethical statement. What about it is properly normative? WHY should that statement be thought of as normative? What underlying theory of values does that statement fit within?
My point is that I hear lots of fluffy claims with no foundation, and it is not the case that everybody's opinion is as good as everybody else's. This is primarily the case because these various opinions contradict. It's easy to make claims with no foundation, but all the hand-waving aside, I'm not hearing anybody yet explain WHY Robinson's statement (or any of the others so far) is normative.
For example, why SHOULD we do what Robinson suggests? Why SHOULD we look to see what Mother Earth wants? (Why should we even think that Mother Earth wants anything?) What is the normative principle that underlies karma?
I'm baffled, but as it's already been pointed out, of course I'm dense. Feel free to punt, if you like. Of course, then I (and other careful thinkers) will find WoS (and other climbs) to be an example of... WHAT?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 04:01am PT
|
Ed,
By the first sentence in Robinson's definition you present I would very much argue that M & R "discovered" the least technology / highest technique passage up the apron. I would further argue that their ascent epitomizes the second sentence in that same definition.
I base both assertions, again, on the idea that in this case the route dictated the means and that only better tools (hooks), as suggested by Christian, would result in a better outcome than M & R's. I can't help but circling around to this same question about every twenty posts: could anyone climb that line or a line anywhere in the neighborhood with a significantly better "technique", with more skills, or with a higher degree of "boldness". Each time I circle back my answer is an emphatic "no" yet again; and that both the underlying assumption and unescapable conclusion following the "ethics" train of logic is that the route shouldn't have been climbed - and still shouldn't given no passage would have less impact until Van der Waals shoes and gloves are available. But then you are talking about what? "Forcing a passage[.i]" with no impact? Hell, where's the fun in that...
|
|
elcapfool
Big Wall climber
hiding in plain sight
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 09:01am PT
|
Perhaps part of the issue is impact vs. usage.
A higher number of bolts is frowned on, but can become accepted if the overall contribution of the route has enough appeal to the masses. Is anyone going to say the nose shouldn't have been climbed because the features run out before rimming out? No.
But 150 or so bolts on a route that no one wants to do is clearly the other end of the spectrum. The route was designed to keep people off of it. From the run out hooking off bad rivets, to the formula for riveting/ bolting to up the difficulty.
I am amused you don't think WoS was a visionary route. Can you name even one other route anywhere in the world to compare it to?
And what's the deal on the small holes on RoF? I heard you made some special bathook to use the narrower hole, so no one else would be able to hook it as well as you did. Granted I have only touched the first placement, but I got ideas from the smaller hole. Namely, one could use a secret special tool, that would stump everyone else. I even sketched up a prototype for using a 5/32 hole. Do the math, you are removing way less rock, so it would be much faster.
From my strictly personal view, you can pull whatever shenanigans you want on any rock in the world, except El Capitan. When Latino street punks start tagging the Vatican, I suppose I'll have to rethink that, but for now I'm comfortable with it.
I have looked all over the net, but can't find any info on the petzl hooks from 1995. I bought them in Paris at Au Vieux Campeur. I thought the model was "crochet", but have since learned this is French for "hook". They had less radius than the Regelette, with a unique rounded sharp point, and a sewn sportdraw type sling pivoting from a slot on the bottom.
The secret for the WoS hooking is to only use one aider on a hook. Two causes the hook to rock back and forth, while one keeps the pull straight. I used a Yates wall ladder with a truncated disc of plastic at the bottom and some pins for weight, to keep it open and down, and facing the wall. Just put one foot on top of the other when you get to the top of the aider.
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 16, 2006 - 09:34am PT
|
Question for madbolter and msmith:
Even though there has been so much scrutiny of WoS, some of the details are still vague. So while we are all here again....
You have been very forthcoming with a lot of the history of your climb, so can you tell us, as much as you remember, a few more details about the route?
Specifically, how many pitches of new climbing did you establish on WoS? (I'm under the impression that after the slab, you joined Horse Chute? Or were there new pitches established above the slab, too?). Also, roughly what was the length of the new pitches? Were you using 150' or 165' ropes?
Several people have requested an original topo. Does one exist, and if so, can we see it?
You have quoted the number of hook placements quite precisely as 151, I believe? Roughly how many other placements (heads, pitons, chocks, etc.) were there? I'm interested on the total number of undrilled aid placements on the pitches that involved new climbing. Related to this, were there any free climbing sections?
Can you break down the numbers of drilled placements; that is, separate the number of belay bolts, and the number of on-lead drilled anchors?
Finally, do you think your line was the only line of weakness up the slab, or from what you saw up there, there were other paths that looked feasible?
thanks
|
|
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 11:35am PT
|
Trying to increase my word count per post… Also as a ‘fraidy cat and otherwise retired aid climber, I am obviously well equipped to espouse Yosemite climbing ethics.
Richard, you ask a good question on the definition of ethics in climbing. Raising the technical issues of metaethics and normative ethics may be a good place to start to tease out the meaning of applied ethics.
It seems to me that ethics in Yosemite rock climbing (I wrote first ‘climbing’, then ‘rock climbing,’ then ‘Valley climbing,’ then ‘Yosemite rock climbing.’) are based on trade offs along variations within single ethical attributes as well as trade offs among competing ethical attributes.
The attributes that I would include as ethical are the following. There are also style issues and safety issues that I have purposely left off the ethics list, although I don’t believe there are any hard and fast rules.
-Difficulty
-Damage to the rock
-Beauty of the line
-Conforming the climbing to the natural line
-Adherence to standards that allow subsequent ascents
A normative statement might be: "Climb new routes only on natural lines following features of the rock. Do not reduce the line to difficulty standards below the current standards by enhancing holds. Do not artificially add to the difficulty of the line. Choose techniques and gear that are commonly available so that your route can be repeated by climbers with similar skills. Do not use techniques or gear that damage the rock—“leave no trace behind.”
We might argue with the particulars of such a normative statement, but I think it comes pretty close to what Yosemite climbers have been doing in fact for at least the past 60 years of so.
What pass for ethical statements are only of the applied sort. Robbins’ first ascent rule is one of the oldest; all new bolts will be chopped is a more recent one. However as fixed ethical rules they lose their currency and authority as the target moves: as the lines become more tenuous; the natural difficulty increases; the damage to the rock becomes more acute; the equipment changes; and the standards of difficulty increase.
Robinson’s statement seems to be an attempt to set a meta-normative rule (if there is such a thing) that may be useful in thinking about the issues, but it doesn’t seem to offer much in the way of applied rules.
The mass of all rock climbs (as opposed to mountaineering) can only be defined by generally accepted rules, agreed by climbers. Given this, sorting out the ethics becomes essential. Fortunately, most of this work rests with the climbers who are doing first ascents, and many climbers can climb their whole lives without having to make an ethical decision. A common response to all of this is to say that it doesn’t matter or that you have to make up your own mind—the editorial position taken by one of the rags in their recent ‘ethics’; issue. This is wrong headed since every climber in the world accepts that the nature of rock climbing is about following the rules, whether they like to discuss or think about ethics or not.
There are shades of gray that trip all of us up. Practical examples:
The first ascent of the Cathedral Spires involved whacking notches into a thin flake.
The first ascent of the ‘Lost Arrow’ was climbed with a lasso.
The first ascent team on the Dihedral Wall used lots of fixed ropes rather than maintain the difficulty associated with ground up ascents.
Robbins used too many bolts on ‘Tis-sa-ack’.
Bachar hung on hooks to place bolts on the ‘Bachar Yerian.’
Kauk placed crummy bolts on ‘Space Babble.’
I purposely picked old issues to show the effects of fading-with-time and the effects of increased levels of difficulty on ethical breakpoints.
The ethical difficulty for climbers comes with balancing offsetting normative proscriptions:
When does ‘cleaning’ become enhancing become manufacturing?
Where does damage to the rock to maintain difficulty get replaced with a rivet or bolt?
Where is the break point for holes drilled on a beautiful line versus holes drilled on a suspect line?
Where is the break point for continued damage to the rock on a free route versus an aid route?
The fact that these are debatable break points does not mean that there are not normative ethical benchmarks.
I see in John’s first post a clear definition of a breakpoint when he and his peers decided that if you had to enhance the rock, you should drill a permanent hole. That’s pretty normative and a clear break from prior thinking. With all the kudos to John for deciding that and living up to it, it is still restricted to a subset of trade offs. For example, it doesn’t cover pins that clearly will damage the rock over time. The world ain’t perfect.
|
|
Teth
climber
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 11:39am PT
|
Although deuce4's ethical distinction of counting any modification made using a hammer in combination with a chisel/drill as excessive artificial enhancement does not clear Mark and Richard, as they were unaware of this distinction and used hammer and drill in combination to remove sand grain sized crystals, it does seem to legitimise the route Wings of Steel. I say this because I am certain that it is possible to remove a sand grain sized crystal from the top of a dime width flake without using a hammer in combination with a drill/chisel.
Elcapfool was able to climb the hardest pitches of the slab using special Petzel hooks which were more aggressive than the Leeper narrows, so that they would pop out any offending sand crystals when seating themselves. If Richard and Mark had been aware of the hammer & chisel/drill distinction they could have used a knife blade or the edge of the hook to pop out such crystals. It would have not been quite as easy as giving a delicate tap on the drill with the hammer, but it would have been possible.
I do not see this as contrived hook placements to increase the rating of the pitch. First, there were enough bolts used to keep these pitches from being A5, even if they are runout. Second, the dime width flacks were there, so it was not as if it was a blank featureless face, even if it might have looked like one without very close inspection. After 20 years of exfoliation (on a micro level given the quality of the rock on the great slab) some of the flakes M&R used will be gone and others will have formed which were not useable when M&R climbed it. I doubt that subsequent assents of the first two pitches used all the same hook placements as M&R did.
I do like the distinction of using a hammer in combination with a second tool, even if it is an arbitrary distinction. It is simple to follow, and although you can remove a sand grain sized crystal without violating it, it would be difficult to do major modification such as drilling a hole or trenching without using a hammer and tool in combination. I am not sure that it can be legitimately used to judge someone who was not aware of this principal when the action was taken (I think in such cases you must wade in the gray muck of judging according to the extent of impact, or the principals known to the perpetrator), but as a way of framing an ethical principle for future accents and defining a principle in an easy to understand and follow manner I quite like it.
Teth
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 11:56am PT
|
Richard,
I am probably missing something deeper about the definition of ethics, but I think that the Robinson statement is about as close as we can get to describing our dilemma.
Yosemite Valley has a very long and rich tradition of being the testing ground for ethical considerations in mountaineering, beginning with John Muir, the first white mountaineer/poet to tramp them hills, the Sierra Clubbers who "conquered" Lower and Higher Spire, Robbins et al. who debated what was "fair and sporting" on new routes, to Robinson with his clean climbing manifesto, to Kauk and Bacher fighting over rap bolting and chopping.
The fact that modern climbers have these roots leads to a kind of schizophrenia when faced with modern climbing practices and culture. This is the root of Dean Potter's "communing with nature" in front of a high impact camera crew.
I learned ropecraft as a kid from some of the old timers in the Sierra Club. At a sunday climb back then I got to meet David Brower - one of the most effective conservationists of this century, but also the first guy to use an expansion bolt to make a "modern" rock climb (Shiprock) possible. When climbing a classic Sierra arete, it is easy to feel in tune with nature and connected to our rich conservationist lineage. Then you go to the sport crag and connect to the "technological solution" started by Brower, (or George Anderson).
As an environmental educator I feel challenged to explain bolts, chains, rap slings, and even bright chalk marks, to the kids I hike around Donner Summit with, and I can totally relate to the horror a group of bird watchers experienced when hiking into a crew of power drilling, tunes blastin, butt tossing, climbers in Boulder.
The fact that we are allowed to climb on rocks within public land preserves is kind of amazing when you think about it, and can only be explained by the traditional relationship between climbing/environmentalist pioneers and the Park and Forest services.
Though far short of prescriptive rules and clear metrics that you seek, community debate and feedback is vital to keep the sport evolving with some kind of connection to its roots. Also, mitigating actions such as Ken Yeagers' Valley Clean Up are community ethical acts that go a long way toward preserving our privilage to climb. I am really worried that incidents like Watkins being strung with ropes etc. could shut the whole thing down in the park.
Quick condemnation and action are necessary when ethical boundaries are clearly breached. On the scale of what you do with a hammer on a particular move, I agree with Ed (who agreed with me) that it may be more of a question of art critique, but it is important to remember the larger historical ethical context (and connundrum!).
Peter
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 12:14pm PT
|
Richard here's some real so called "Zen crap" for yeah.
Two monks on a pilgrimage came to the ford of a river. There they saw a girl dressed in all her finery, obviously now knowing what to do since the river was high and she did not want to spoil her clothes. Without more ado, one of the monks took her on his back, carried her across and put her down on dry ground on the other side. Then the monks continued on their way.
However, the other monk, after an hour or so, started complaining, Surely it is not right to touch a woman; it is against the commandments to have close contact with women. How could you go against the rules for monks?
The monk who had carried the girl walked along silently, but finally he remarked, I set her down by the river an hour ago, why are you still carrying her?
Still carrying her? She's a pretty damn heavy one.
|
|
the Fet
climber
A urine, feces, and guano encrusted ledge
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 01:33pm PT
|
Very interesting thoughts and comments from everyone.
madbolter: "I haven't heard anything yet to explain HOW (and related to that question, WHY) what we do to rocks counts as right or wrong."
Ok, you asked for it, and since you're a philosopher...
note: I don't profess to be organized or very clear in my writing, but hopefully you'll find some interesting ideas below.
My take is that all of this really boils down to WHY we rock climb. We are all looking for challenge, otherwise we could just hike up the falls trail to the top of El Cap.
Topics like WoS and The WOEML are very interesting because it's where style and ethics collide. With 2nd ascents and on, ethics are pretty cut and dry, leave the route how you found it. But on an FA the team is going to pick their own style and other people are going to judge that style by it's effects on other climbers and the rock. People are going to judge the validity of the route and if the route could have been done in a better style by someone else. And if someone could possibly do it better does that mean that the route should lie in wait, or does it boil down to the generally accepted "first come, first served"? I guess that's up to the local community to decide.
A light really went on in my head one day while I was discussing style/ethics with RR, (yes, shameless namedropping :-) I asked him about these comments below regarding the Prow, which are in the history section of the SuperTaco for the route.
"The climb required 38 bolts-not such a big deal today, but the '60s bolting ethic was different, and the ascent propmted criticism. TM Herbert said, "Robbins, Robbins, not you, not you, man. Hell, you'll set a bad example. Pretty soon we'll have guys bolting up blank walls all over the valley." Robbins responded, "But man, it's all a question of the climb being worth it. Worth the number of bolts. Look at the line, man, look at the line."
To which Royal replied to me. "I never said that!" LOL. He then said it's not about the climb being worth it, but the climbing being worth it. I think this is a pretty big distinction between Robbins and Harding. Harding was obviously all about the line, the aesthetic. He looked at the Salathe Wall area before choosing the Nose. He knew a more natural line existed elsewhere but he would just look at a wall that looked appealing and think "I want to climb that." Robbins was more focused on the naturalness (is that a word?) of the line. Who was right? Are they both entitled to their opinions?
We have all heard countless times "life is about the journey not the destination". And that applies to climbing too. As I mention above, if it's just getting to the top of El Cap you could take the falls trail. However without a destination there is no journey, destinations are what give you some of the greatest rewards in life - the journeys. I have come to the conslusion that life is most rewarding when you can acheive a balance between setting challenging goals "destinations" while at the same time realizing that the journey to reach those goals is what helps you grow, and feel fulfilled. In life this can also be thought of as - appreciate what you have, while at the same time striving for more. All of a sudden the concept of desire causing suffering evaporates, desire leads to purpose, as long as you don't think you won't be happy unless/until you reach that desire.
If we eliminated technology many climbs would never have been done. Without bolts even the Salathe Wall wouldn't have been done (actually I guess it could have been done some day, since people can free it now, so possibly someday someone could climb it without bolts).
At the top of a conceptual mountain is the naked, chalkless, onsight, free-solo. Absolute purity of climbing that people rarely engage in (and strict adherence to would negate the possiblity of the establishment of countless fanstastic climbs). Then following that slippery slope all the way to the bottom of that mountain is a bolt ladder, place on rappel. I think in reality most of use are somewhere in the middle. Some are more to one side than the other, but when I hear statements such as "so and so was raping the rock" they aren't realizing that those other people are probably climbing for many of the same reasons they are. At the same time I also realize we need "style/ethics police" because that slope IS slippery. Many new climbers don't realize why it's important to limit technology and preserve the challenge and must be educated.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 01:35pm PT
|
Christian, we used a standard-sized 1/4" drill for our bathooks on RoF. I have no idea how you got a different idea, particularly since a Leeper narrow hook drops perfectly into those holes (which is exactly how we drilled them). We used bathooks on RoF instead of rivets to extend the idea of "keeping the commitment level high." Of course, I realize that this is "manufactured difficulty," which was exactly our point. For example, if you look at the first pitch, you will see from that our philosophy for the whole route. We used only specially designed, exotic steel (very expensive) claws of many shapes and sizes, along with custom screamers we had designed, in order to protect our pitches. Mark took two falls on that first pitch, both of which were from heights above 50-feet off the deck, and our system worked to save him from ground falls (screamers activated, tiny claws, on natural flakes, held). We were very intentionally trying to push the edge of the hooking envelope, with hooking pitches in which you could not look down and think, "Maybe even that crappy Zamac is going to hold this hundred-footer." We released our courtesy topo to SAR (so the Park Service would know where our anchors are), but since then have said nothing publicly about the route. We did not do the route with the intention or desire that anybody else do it, so the experience really was "just for ourselves." On the other hand, anybody will find that a Leeper narrow hook drops perfectly into our bathook holes, so "standard" bathooking is just what they will find.
You will find me completely unwilling to be drawn into any debate or discussion about RoF, since we very intentionally did not say anything public about this route. The route has always been private to Mark and I, so people can do or not do whatever they wish about it, and people can think or not think (which has been the general position) whatever they wish about it.
However, your line about WoS: "But 150 or so bolts on a route that no one wants to do is clearly the other end of the spectrum. The route was designed to keep people off of it," flies in the face of the facts. In fact, MANY people have "wanted" to do the route, MANY have tried it, and the fact that ALL have so far failed doesn't speak to desire. If even "hard" big walls must be crafted specifically to make the experience "fun," then I suggest that the supposed "hard men" are really "fun men" who would better employ their mentality designing cool rides at a theme park. We went up on WoS to push ourselves to our (then) limits, and in that we succeeded. If you and some others find the route "not fun" enough to "desire" it enough to succeed, then that says something about attempt-teams rather than the route.
Another point is that there are not "150 or so" bolts on the route. We have been extremely forthright and accurate (for decades) about the EXACT number of holes on WoS, yet there is always this "drift" (uhh... some might say "these lies") about the amount of drilling on the route. But we've been around and around about this point, haven't we, Christian?
Really, the issue on THIS thread is that JM started it to try to create a more rigorous basis for sustaining his assertion that the "enhancements" on WoS were a baaddd thing, and that the "clear, bright line" between using the pick of a hammer (like he and Peter have done) and putting the hammer and drill (or chisel) together (like we, and many other FAs have done) is a beautifully distinguishing basis for an "ethic" about how to do FAs. Somehow, removing dozens of POUNDS of rock to get placements is wonderful and "ethical" because it was done using JUST the pick of a hammer, which the probably less than one gram of material we removed from a few flakes on WoS is obviously baaddd and "unethical" because we used a drill tip to do it!
Hmm... if we COULD have been as PRECISE as we needed to be, to remove the TINY amounts of rock we did, with the pick of a hammer we SHOULD have done our mods that way! Right? So, this "ethic" (and I continue to use that term derisively) would suggest that we would have been BETTER to beat the living crap out of our flakes with the tip of a hammer, digging nice, safe, deep pits into the wall (but using ONLY the hammer--being CAREFUL to keep the hammer and drill apart from each other), then that would have been "ethical" and good! It's like gun laws in California: keep the gun and the ammo separate! (It's of note that this very distinction fails Robinson's maxim! Emphasizing "least equipment" fails to explicate in distinguishing between, say, ZM and WoS.)
I deny that there is any clear or even sensible line here. I assert instead that the term "ethics" has been bandied about ignorantly and uselessly, and I await hearing the genuinely ethical theory that can explain why anything we do to a rock matters. I thought this was an "ethics" thread, but it seems that we're hashing out the same old failed rhetoric that hundreds of posts have already beat into the ground. What I learn from this is that when informed and careful thinking fails to explain why WoS was bad, bad, BAD; in that event simple assertions will have to suffice. Count me ROFL as the bad arguments get worse and more desperate.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 01:41pm PT
|
John, most of your questions have been answered repeatedly on other threads. So, I'm not going to reiterate all those points again. One point is amazing to me at this stage, however. After all these years you honestly believe that we ditched the route into Horse Chute at the top of the slab? We did thirteen new pitches, four of which were above the slab, and we joined Aquarian Wall rather than Horse Chute. We used 165 foot ropes, and except for the thirteenth, our shortest pitch is 145 feet of rope run, almost all were longer.
Regarding whether or not "another line of weakness" exists on the slab, I would certainly think so. The slab is over 600 feet wide at the base, so anybody can stroll along and see possibilities.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 02:06pm PT
|
I guess in the end I'd just love to see - anyone - establish another line up the apron with the same technology as M & R used and do it in any better style, a smaller "hole" count, fewer pieces of fixed pro, and with less impact (removed material). Faster and lighter I believe - but I still don't believe and haven't been convinced by anything here that I or any of you would be able to accomplish a line on the apron in any better "style" or "ethics".
And I guess I'm still at a loss as to why no one seems to want to simply say, "others could do it better..." or what everyone clearly seems to be saying if they can't say that - "no one should climb the apron". Simple language, simple statements; no Ph.D. in Ethics or Philosophy required. For all of you arguing agains WoS - Should the apron be climbed (yes or no)? And if "yes", do you believe someone using the exact same technologies as M & R could do a better job (yes or no)?
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 02:42pm PT
|
richard,
the argument that you make about using the hammer w/out the drill sounds valid in the way that you make it, but perhaps using the hammer in such a heavy handed way on the micro-flakes on a slab would violate another ethical standard? at the very least an aesthetic one? in that way, your statements come off as unreasonable.
regarding repeats of WoS, isn't it one possible, entirely reasonable interpretation of the fact that no effort has been sustained on the route, and no other line has been established up the slab, to conclude that the sort of climbing (be it the style or the aesthetic value) is simply unappealing to the vast majority of modern aid climbers? (didn't ammon describe the climbing as "tedious"?)
EDIT-
the same could be said about cutting edge free-climbing slab routes, how many climbers lie in bed at night, visualising themselves sending hard slab? it doesn't mean more climbers couldn't do them, they are just into other aesthetics, for whatever reason(s).
/EDIT
so perhaps others view the route as not worth the trouble?
i am not saying that is 100% the case (how could i or anyone know?), but i think it's at least woth considering, on some level, that if the climb were viewed as appealing, there would be more interest in it. look at pete and ammon, was there interest in the line itself, or in the controversey that surrounds it?
i am not saying this to knock you down at all, but your post above does come across as patting yourself on the back a bit for being "hard" enough to persevere- i expect you meant to do that without the implication that nobody out there is as "hard" as you(?) 'cause the world is full of sickos, and plenty of them own some gear.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 02:48pm PT
|
Roger, you at least attempt to step up to the plate, and for that I am grateful. In all you've said (nice, long post, BTW--but I'm gunning to beat you with this one!), however, you yourself acknowledge that there are many "grey" areas, even as we try to strive toward a more normalized standard. My point has been that the "grey" areas are not even "ethics" enough to be "grey" yet, because nobody seems to want to ante up with even the APPLIED ethic that might define the boundaries.
Now, at least you've taken a stab at the applied side of ethics. I would argue that this is extremely premature, since without a metaethic, applied ethical discussions quickly turn into raving fits in a vacuum. Just look at abortion debates, or discussions about what "should" be done in the Middle East! These are classic "applied ethics" discussions in the absence of ANY metaethical position.
It has been floated that we CANNOT agree on any metaethic, so we have no choice but to jump straight to applied ethics. I disagree. The vast majority of people are deontologists in their ethical THINKING, and they are consequentialists when "real life" impinges on their ethical thinking. Thus, most people can be brought to a theoretical agreement, but, being people, most of them will NOT abide by that agreement once they start to see the implications. Thus, they intentionally choose inconsistency rather than LIVE by the principles they theoretically espouse; they prove to not be intellectually honest.
That very problem exists on this thread. The contrast between ZM and WoS nicely illustrates the problem. The FA team of ZM removed something like tonage of rock to make their way up a "natural" line, while Mark and I removed something like a gram of rock to make our way up an "unnatural" line.
However, since you DO step up to the plate, I will consider your suggestions as you gave them:
-Difficulty: Both WoS and ZM are difficult. WoS may be "more" difficult, as people who have done or worked on both suggest.
-Damage to the rock: WoS did FAR less rock damage than ZM. This point is now beyond dispute.
-Beauty of the line: Oooo, careful now! At this point we're making an already muddy subject (applied ethics) even more muddy by introducing aesthetics into it! Big mistake! I'm not going to go there. This point shouldn't have anything to do with an ETHIC.
-Conforming the climbing to the natural line: Both ZM and WoS did this. Now, of course, what counts as a "line" has changed (and continues to change) over time. The features WoS puts together are small, but they exist. The problem that makes this point intractable is that "natural" is another aesthetic judgment. Are all slab climbs "unethical" because they utilize tiny features and require drilled protection? This point fails to explicate.
-Adherence to standards that allow subsequent ascents: Both WoS and ZM do this. There is nothing in principle keeping people from doing a SA of WoS. We did not, contrary to what Christian continues (in the face of the evidence) to float: "design the route to keep people off." Well, we DID "design it" to be HARD for US (as hard as WE could handle at the time), so I guess if that is keeping people off, then we did "design the route to keep people off." See the point? This is another element of the applied ethic that fails to explicate.
Your summary statement is better: "A normative statement might be: 'Climb new routes only on natural lines following features of the rock. Do not reduce the line to difficulty standards below the current standards by enhancing holds. Do not artificially add to the difficulty of the line. Choose techniques and gear that are commonly available so that your route can be repeated by climbers with similar skills. Do not use techniques or gear that damage the rock—'leave no trace behind.'"
I think most people would say, "Yes! Something like that is exactly what we are after." However, there are many, many problems here. I've already pointed out the problem of "natural lines." Now, what are "current standards" of difficulty? How does this point distinguish between "enhancements" that actually make the route and the placements HARDER (as with WoS) and "enhancements" that do "reduced the difficulty" below "current standards," whatever those might be?
The point: "choosing techniques and gear that are commonly available" seems like a red herring, and it is one that has often not been followed. HOW "commonly available" must gear be? And what's the ETHICAL violation in expecting people to walk up to your route (having the needed info in hand about what exists on the route) and then having to decide what tactics and gear they had best employ to get up it?
And the final point, "leave no trace behind" works poorly in backpacking and not at all in climbing. Unless we strive toward this "ethic" by entirely-nude free-soloing of big walls, EVERY ascent leaves traces behind. This point is not just some "ideal" we should strive toward, even knowing that we won't reach the "ideal" because it's better to strive toward it than to not, like your actual admission of this point when you say,"The world ain't perfect." This "ideal" is so utterly inapplicable in principle that it is useless. If, instead, you want to say something like, "minimize damage," then that at least seems remotely applicable, since it says "minimize" rather than "do no damage." THIS, at least, SEEMS like an ideal we should be striving toward. Now its problem remains that "minimize" is a completely relative term, so, for example, this principle fails to explicate in the distinction between ZM and WoS. ZM is viewed as laudable, while (at least by a few here) WoS is not; yet WoS "minimized" damage far more than did ZM. So, I remain unconvinced about the practical applicability of this principle.
As I've said, I don't think that JM's distinction (as clear as it sounds to some) is anything more than an unprincipled, arbitrary line. It seems good to the very same people who seem quite comfortable with the FA team on ZM intentionally beating the crap out of the rock with just a hammer pick. If Mark and I had employed such tactics on WoS, we would have caught even more hell for it! There is simply no grounds for debate that the tiny, slight "modification" we did on WoS is insignificant, especially compared to the heavy-handed use of the hammer (alone--how glorious!) on ZM. Yet, John's principle fails to filter ZM's tactics out (as it properly should) along with WoS's tactics. The line is arbitrary and fails to abide by even the "minimize damage" principle we might have ALL agreed with earlier. Sigh.
Really, we should wonder WHY the "lofty" standard suggested by John fails in exactly this way. There is something very interesting to be learned from the fact that ZM is not called "bad" even though it was ascended using tactics that utterly violate the POINT of John's ideal (and the "minimize damage" principle). John simply can't bring himself to bash on the ZM FA team! They are just too respected! He just can't bring himself to say, "Damn, guys! I never realized that you literally beat the living crap out of that route! 'Hammer only' or no, such heavy-handed tactics seem obviously FAR beyond the sort of 'rock destruction' employed by the WoS guys! I guess to be consistent, as I backhand slap those guys I'm going to have to forehand slap you guys!" But no such sentiment exists. When SOME people beat the rock into submission (reread Peter's posts on the subject!), that's just fine, but when OTHERS do far less, then that's fodder for hundreds of posts and vilification.
This brings us to the real issue in "climbing ethics." You and others have suggested that "we," the "climbing community" collectively share some sort of basic instinct about what "good" and "bad" climbing is. But if the climbing community AT LARGE should learn anything from WoS, it is just HOW fractured its "ethics" are, and HOW much the "community" depends upon the "judgments" (all scare quotes) of a few "top" climbers. When pushed, however, we see that these "judgments" are based upon NOTHING, or, worse, they appeal in circular fashion to the "community," which is itself supposedly deriving its "ethics" from the few at the "top." Well, perhaps I've been a bit too harsh to say that the "ethics" at the "top" are based upon NOTHING--really, they are based on something: a purely self-interestedly, unprincipled, pragmatic assessment of WHO gets to use the "limited" resource, rather than WHAT gets done on that resource.
Let me make myself clear: I am not the one who thinks that ZM is a "bad" route because it used heavy-handed hammer tactics. John SHOULD think and say that, because his (and the "minimize damage") principle demands it. Otherwise, his utterly arbitrary line is quite apparently morally bankrupt. But, I have no such arbitrary line, and so I am not forced by consistency to say that EITHER WoS or ZM were "bad" routes because they "modified" in their various ways. I think ZM was a GREAT route, and I think that such routes, put up in that STYLE, are just great!
But STYLE is all I really hear about on this thread, not ETHICS, and excuse me if I put ZERO stock in the STYLE of a few guys who have suspect judgment IMHO.
Thank you for your efforts, Roger. I think you have lent some clarity to the overall discussion.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 02:56pm PT
|
Peter summarized: "It is important to remember the larger historical ethical context (and connundrum!)." I applaud you. As long as we do hash these things out in TRUE historical context, there MAY be some light amid the smoke.
I well recognize that no knock-down, overarching ethical principle is going to emerge from these discussions. What I am doing is putting pressure on those who have acted (and treated us) as though they have such a principle in hand.
How hard can it be for some people to say something like this?: "Yeah, WoS SEEMED to me to be going too far. But now, placed in its full 'historical context,' comparing it to a route like ZM done less than a year before, for just one example, it seems that the 'modifications' on WoS are actually insignificant and offer no real basis upon which to judge the route."
But, instead, a determined few will struggle to come up with THE "ethical principle" that will filter WoS and ONLY WoS out as a bad route, and I will continue to poke justifiable fun at such "principles."
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!