I suspect you don’t know much about mountaineering based on your comments:
“Mountaineering is a rather banal adventure”—have you ever climbed a mountain? If so, how dangerous was it? I doubt those that have climbed K2 consider it banal.
“zero greatness in mountaineering”—there are still unclimbed peaks and new routes to already-summited peaks.
“noble and altruistic ways to risk your life”—some people don’t care about nobility or altruism the way LW users do.
“Mountaineering is a rather banal adventure”—have you ever climbed a mountain? If so, how dangerous was it? I doubt those that have climbed K2 consider it banal.
Danger and banality are not opposite. E.g. speeding on the road is both banal and dangerous. Same for climbing K2. Sure, you get some animalistic pleasures: adrenaline, nice views, some respect from similarly wrong people. But that’s it.
“zero greatness in mountaineering”—there are still unclimbed peaks and new routes to already-summited peaks.
I don’t see how climbing a moderately big rock is a path to greatness.
“noble and altruistic ways to risk your life”—some people don’t care about nobility or altruism the way LW users do.
Well, they’re both wrong and are bad people.
Especially if they know that there are alternatives like donating for anti-mosquito nets, and yet they still decide to waste resources on mountaineering.
Views and challenges are unique for each mountain, hence not banal by definition.
How do you define greatness? Would climbing something that no one else has ever climbed before, despite being attempted multiple times by professionals, fall under your definition?
I find your “still decide to waste resources” argument poor. Where does the logic end? Should people have zero fun and live like beggars just to donate every last cent to fighting malaria? Why are you commenting on LessWrong when you could be out doing something altruistic?
How do you define greatness? Would climbing something that no one else has ever climbed before, despite being attempted multiple times by professionals, fall under your definition?
Not sure if there is any greatness in climbing rocks at all.
Compare: finishing an unusually large pizza. It is dangerous, no one ever ate such a large pizza before, there is a lot of joy in eating a good pizza, and maybe your name will be mentioned in Wikipedia. But the feat is so pointless and banal, there is not greatness in it at all.
I find your “still decide to waste resources” argument poor. Where does the logic end? Should people have zero fun and live like beggars just to donate every last cent to fighting malaria? Why are you commenting on LessWrong when you could be out doing something altruistic?
Fair enough. I myself not sure where it should end. But some things are clear indicators of not caring enough for fellow humans. For example, installing a toilet made of pure gold, or spending 20k for being the 5000th person to climb Everest.
I have nothing against having fun. But there is a moral difference between having fun playing video games, and having fun spending the (money equivalent of 100 saved lives) to climb Everest.
Mountain climbing isn’t that expensive, but if consuming large amounts of money on non-EA activities was your real gripe, you would be complaining about the nigh infinite number of things people with disposable incomes of above 50k/y spend their money and time on in general, and not obviously be specifically opposed to mountain climbing. It’s not so you’re not.
It seems like you’ve retreated fully from your bailey:
“at the risk of being the Captain Obvious, I must remind the readers that mountain climbing is stupid”
to your motte:
“There is no greatness in being the 5001th man who climbed Everest”
I suspect most people responding take greater issue with the former position, so maybe if you still stand by it you could defend that one. To me, it seems like the standard of “if it increases your chances of dying, it’s a stupid recreational activity” is one that is unlikely to be applied evenly by just about anyone.
E.G., if you want to apply that consistently, you should probably have a very restrictive diet, and definitely not play video games for moderate to long periods of time (risk of death from blood clots, sedentariness, etc)
I suspect you don’t know much about mountaineering based on your comments:
“Mountaineering is a rather banal adventure”—have you ever climbed a mountain? If so, how dangerous was it? I doubt those that have climbed K2 consider it banal.
“zero greatness in mountaineering”—there are still unclimbed peaks and new routes to already-summited peaks.
“noble and altruistic ways to risk your life”—some people don’t care about nobility or altruism the way LW users do.
Danger and banality are not opposite. E.g. speeding on the road is both banal and dangerous. Same for climbing K2. Sure, you get some animalistic pleasures: adrenaline, nice views, some respect from similarly wrong people. But that’s it.
I don’t see how climbing a moderately big rock is a path to greatness.
Well, they’re both wrong and are bad people.
Especially if they know that there are alternatives like donating for anti-mosquito nets, and yet they still decide to waste resources on mountaineering.
I’m starting to think you’re trolling.
Views and challenges are unique for each mountain, hence not banal by definition.
How do you define greatness? Would climbing something that no one else has ever climbed before, despite being attempted multiple times by professionals, fall under your definition?
I find your “still decide to waste resources” argument poor. Where does the logic end? Should people have zero fun and live like beggars just to donate every last cent to fighting malaria? Why are you commenting on LessWrong when you could be out doing something altruistic?
Not sure if there is any greatness in climbing rocks at all.
Compare: finishing an unusually large pizza. It is dangerous, no one ever ate such a large pizza before, there is a lot of joy in eating a good pizza, and maybe your name will be mentioned in Wikipedia. But the feat is so pointless and banal, there is not greatness in it at all.
Fair enough. I myself not sure where it should end. But some things are clear indicators of not caring enough for fellow humans. For example, installing a toilet made of pure gold, or spending 20k for being the 5000th person to climb Everest.
Someone here do this template but for pseudorational mountain climbing criticism
I have nothing against having fun. But there is a moral difference between having fun playing video games, and having fun spending the (money equivalent of 100 saved lives) to climb Everest.
Mountain climbing isn’t that expensive, but if consuming large amounts of money on non-EA activities was your real gripe, you would be complaining about the nigh infinite number of things people with disposable incomes of above 50k/y spend their money and time on in general, and not obviously be specifically opposed to mountain climbing. It’s not so you’re not.
It seems like you’ve retreated fully from your bailey:
“at the risk of being the Captain Obvious, I must remind the readers that mountain climbing is stupid”
to your motte:
“There is no greatness in being the 5001th man who climbed Everest”
I suspect most people responding take greater issue with the former position, so maybe if you still stand by it you could defend that one.
To me, it seems like the standard of “if it increases your chances of dying, it’s a stupid recreational activity” is one that is unlikely to be applied evenly by just about anyone.
E.G., if you want to apply that consistently, you should probably have a very restrictive diet, and definitely not play video games for moderate to long periods of time (risk of death from blood clots, sedentariness, etc)