Living on the Edge: Extreme Sports and their Role in Society

Living on the Edge: Extreme Sports and their Role in Society

Page Type Page Type: Article

Living on the Edge: Extreme Sports and their Role in Society

With regard to extreme sports, the perception of the general public is that people who choose to take risks are irresponsible ‘adrenaline junkies’ who are ultimately a burden to society. When a person takes unnecessary risks, and becomes injured or in need of rescue, the expenses for coming to their aid are often borne by taxpayers. It should not be surprising then, that these same taxpayers question why they should have to pay for these seemingly foolish actions. A backcountry rescue after skiers trigger an avalanche, for example, will cost thousands of dollars. Skateboarders cause damage to both private and public property, and injure themselves. While these issues have been discussed at great length in the media, rarely does discussion focus on the negative impact of limiting access to these types of risky sports. What would be the effect on society if we made it more difficult for people to engage in these types of activities? In fact, by curbing a person’s passions and limiting access to their chosen sports–even those the public may consider risky– these athletes may well find outlets for their energy that is much more burdensome to society.

While it is true that extreme sports do not appeal to the masses, there are still a significant number of people to whom these activities are an important and fulfilling part of their lives. It is our differences that make a society interesting, so while it may not be for everyone, high-risk activities contribute to the diversity of our culture. We all crave adventure to some degree or another. As author, outdoorsman, and Idaho State University faculty member, Ron Watters explains in his essay “The Wrong Side of the Thin Edge”, everyone needs a little adventure. But some people need more than the normal forms of life’s excitement and take it one step further, participating in high-risk activities- sports played on the edge, where the consequences are far greater, and where as the great American mountaineer and outdoor philosopher Willi Unsoeld once said, ‘It has to be real enough to kill you.’ (258) Psychologist Frank Farley has studied thrill seeking risk-takers for decades, and has developed the term “Type T” (for thrill seeking). Farley describes Type T personality types as "risk-takers and adventurers who seek excitement and stimulation wherever they can find or create it." (qtd. in Roberts)

Type T’s are not just the mountain climbing daredevils of the world however. They are often our best inventors, entrepreneurs and explorers. They are CEOs, surgeons, and civil rights leaders. Take high altitude mountaineer Dr. Kenneth Kamler for example, a New York microsurgeon and listed in the New York Guide to Best Doctors as well as in Who's Who in America. We wouldn’t be the progressive, vibrant society we are today if no one was willing to take risks. Farley argues that history's most crucial events are shaped by Type T individuals exhibiting Type T behaviour, from Boris Yeltsin to Martin Luther King, Jr. The act of emigration, he says, is an intrinsically risky endeavor that selects individuals who are high in sensation seeking. Consequently, countries built upon immigrant population--America, Canada, Australia--probably have an above-average level of risk takers. He warns that much of the current effort to minimize risk and risk taking itself runs the risk of eliminating "a large part of what made this country great in the first place." (qtd. in Roberts)

But for all their positive attributes, Type T personalities also have a dark side. They often bore easily, and without other options their craving for stimulation can lead them to abuse drugs and alcohol, gamble, or engage in other destructive behaviours. Marvin Zuckerman, a psychologist at the University of Delaware and a pioneer in the study of risk’s biological roots notes that without healthy psychological outlets, “the main forms of sensation seeking include sex, drugs, heavy drinking, gambling, and reckless driving." (qtd. in Roberts) People who engage in extreme sports do take risks, but there are far more dangerous ‘highs’ they could be seeking. Rock climbing, mountain biking and snowboarding offer a high that can only be achieved through self discipline, hard work, and a healthy lifestyle. People who are serious about extreme sports are highly trained athletes who take care of their bodies and tend to be very safety conscious.

There is evidence to show that the Type T personality is something people are born with. It isn’t a lifestyle choice. In fact risk taking has been linked to levels of dopamine, a chemical found in the brain that regulates mood and pleasure. Published research conducted by Dr. Ernest Noble of the University of California links the D2 and D4 dopamine receptor genes to risk-taking behaviour. After his 1998 study, Noble estimated that 20 per cent of people are born with the D2 dopamine receptor while 30 per cent are born with both the D2 and the D4 dopamine receptors. (CBC Online Archives)

The predisposition to risk-taking is not a new genetic development. It is likely hardwired into our evolutionary makeup from ancient times, when our survival depended upon the ability to hunt and defend ourselves from attack from predators or other humans. We have been successful in eliminating the vast majority of risk from our daily lives: seatbelts, airbags, and other safety advancements have greatly reduced the dangers associated with driving a car. Most people wear helmets when they bike and rollerblade. Coffee cups even warn us now that the beverage we are about to enjoy is extremely hot. As Watters explains:

The world has become far too safe, and heretofore unknown lands are mapped in far too much detail. As a consequence, we need as many outlets as possible for people to participate in challenging outdoor activities. We need wilderness lands; we need rock climbing areas; we need wild rivers; we need outdoor schools, and given proper environmental safeguards, we need free and unfettered access to outdoor areas. The right to risk is unalienable. It makes our society healthier and more vibrant. (259)

It is getting increasingly difficult to take any risks in the course of a day, and yet we still have this innate need for exhilaration. Without relatively safe outlets for this drive, people predisposed to risk taking behaviors will seek out other activities, with potentially greater personal, social, and economic consequences.

Take for example an extreme mountain biker who experiences a serious fall. He may be badly injured, but the overall scope and consequence to society as a whole is relatively small. A medical team will attend the victim and transport him to a hospital, where he will be cared for. He will likely take some time off work to recuperate. There could be some strain on the immediate family in the short term but before long, life will return to normal. What might happen if the North Shore trails were closed to mountain biking? Might the same man stop by the casino on his way home from work in search of a little excitement? Might he then return there on the weekend in an attempt to stave off boredom? If he is predisposed to risk-taking behaviour, it might not be long before he is gambling beyond his means as he seeks his next ‘high.’ Gambling addiction is a serious problem that can quickly devastate individuals, destroy marriages, break up families and lead to other addictions and health problems. Many people never recover and become a long term drain on the public purse as they require rehabilitation, welfare, and often expensive, ongoing medical care.

It is easy for the issue of health to be overshadowed by the more dramatic problems like addiction for example, but it is an issue that should be of particular concern to the taxpaying public. Consider the kids in the skateboard park. Without the park at the local community center where they can practice and refine their skills, they might follow the lead of many of their peers, opting for a more sedentary existence playing video games which has proven links to obesity. In a study published in the June 2004 issue of the journal Obesity Research, researchers from The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the University Hospital Zurich present a strong association between playing electronic video games and childhood obesity in school-aged Swiss children. “Childhood obesity has increased fivefold in the past 20 years,” said Dr. Peter Katzmarzyk of the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation. “Opportunities for physical activity for children are critical to turning that trend around, and avoiding heart disease and other health problems down the road.” In a day and age where heart disease and type 2 Diabetes are on the rise, we really shouldn’t be discouraging anyone from pursuing physical activities. The long-term costs associated with treating the inevitable outcome of obesity and heart disease are far greater than the cost of setting a few broken arms and repainting a few railings.

Instead of shunning and discouraging extreme athletes, we should celebrate them for their differences and do what we can to support them as they climb higher, go faster and push the limits of human endurance and athleticism. As T.S. Elliot once said, “Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.” With public support, extreme athletes can expand our boundaries and contribute to our diverse and evolving society. By curbing their passions and limiting access to activities some consider too dangerous, we may be inviting even greater risk in the form of addictions, crime and health problems the end result of which is a heavy burden for society to bear.

Works Cited

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (June 30 2004) Electronic Game Use is Associated with Childhood Obesity 12 March 2006. Press release.

“Hardwired for Thrills – Extreme Sports: Faster, Riskier, More Outrageous.” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Online Archives. 25 Feb. 1998. 12 March 2006.

Heart and Stroke Foundation (26 May 2005). Canada gets a “D” in Physical Activity: Report Card Released =news&From=SubCategory.>
12 March 2006. Press release.

Roberts, Paul. “Risk.” Psychology Today Nov/Dec 1994. 12 March 2006

Watters, Ron. “The Wrong Side of the Thin Edge.” To the Extreme: Alternative Sports, Inside and Out. Ed. Robert E. Rinehart and Synthia Sydnor. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003: 258-259.


Post a Comment
Viewing: 41-52 of 52

supermarmot - Aug 15, 2006 5:55 am - Voted 10/10

Re: Re:

and my grandmother smoked for thirty years without ever developing lung cancer.

there are always exceptions. overwhelmingly, poor diet and sedentary lifestyle will increase the hell out of your risk for heart disease. period.

i'd be interested to read about the net healthcare expenditures study, if you know where i can find it. however, my arguments were intended more for publicly funded healthcare (as was the article), and i would not be surprised if things were different in the states.

as to your 1982 mrfit study, i think it is time to let go. at this point consensus is that people who eat healthy foods and exercise will in fact live longer (that's a big part of why we do it, right?), and i doubt if that study holds any water when compared to more recent and sophisticated medical research.


p.s. nice jump!


MoapaPk - Aug 15, 2006 3:48 pm - Voted 10/10

Re: Re:

I'm quoting statistical studies, not relying on anecdotal evidence.

"as to your 1982 mrfit study, i think it is time to let go."

MRFIT is still widely quoted by medical researchers as a "success". I saw its data -- greatly massaged -- in a 2003 grant application. The medical community does not undertake many long-term studies of mortality, and the MRFIT study is actually one of the more recent (more recent than the framingham study, e.g.).

"at this point consensus is that people who eat healthy foods and exercise will in fact live longer (that's a big part of why we do it, right?)"

That may be the consensus, but the support in actual statistical studies is probably much weaker than you realize. At one time, the consensus was that the earth was flat. Don't underestimate the power of the medical profession to draw and widely disseminate conclusions that are not consistent with the data they collect. The Framingham study -- still used to beat people with high cholesterol -- is a prime example. You have to go to the original study to get past the layers of abstraction presented to the public.

Here are a few articles on obesity and health:

'Normal weight individuals of both genders did not appear to be relatively more long-lived than mildly obese individuals (BMI's of 30-35), whereas overweight people (BMI's of 25-30) appear healthiest of all.'

To me, the main reason for staying fit is to allow me to do more things with less pain, now. And I want to have a short morbidity when I reach the end of life, not a long period of painful function loss.

PS -- I have low total cholesterol, low pulse, high HDL, low blood pressure, low CRP, low homocysteine, never smoked, ate healthy -- all the right things -- and I had a stroke in 2002. I'm partly paralyzed on my right side as a result.

It turns out that 40% of strokes are cryptogenic -- no known cause. Mine fit in the remainder of strokes that are unrelated to the commonly cited risk factors, and was partly induced by medical treatment for something else. But when I left the hospital, I was given a pamphlet that put the blame squarely on the familiar risk factors, and emphasized "healthy life style". The only clear tie between stroke and cholesterol is this: people with low cholesterol are more likely to have hemorrhagic strokes.

I do believe some common risk factors are real, in terms of decreasing life span -- smoking, high blood pressure, extreme obesity tied to diabetes. The last one does cost society a lot.

PPS-- the tidbit about smokers' total costs to the health care system was most prominently mentioned in Lamm's keynote speech to CAS; full text of that speech is at:

jblas21 - Aug 16, 2006 7:49 pm - Hasn't voted

An interesting documentary...

There is an interesting documentary on this very subject playing on the documentary channel right now. It's called "On The Edge: The Nature of Risk"

It's worth checking out...

great article. love the type t personality and agree that we should celebrate it. I'm shocked and amazed everytime I watch an X-games event.


MountaingirlBC - Aug 17, 2006 5:43 am - Hasn't voted

Re: An interesting documentary...

cool... looks like i missed it but I'll see if I can catch it next time it's on. thx!


ajfraser - Aug 16, 2006 8:16 pm - Voted 10/10

well spoken

Thanks for a thoughtful and well-backed article. Yes, it is hard to explain the benefits of risk-taking to the comfortably sedentary being.
To echo Chris McCandless in John Krakauer's 'Into the Wild',
"So many people live within unhappy circumstances and yet will not take the initiative to change their situation because they are conditioned to a life of security, conformity, and conservatism, all of which may appear to give one peace of mind, but in reality nothing is more damaging to the adventurous spirit within a man than a secure future. The very basic core of a man's living spirit is his passion for adventure. The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and different sun."
I'd also recommend David Roberts' 'On the Ridge Between Life and Death', a great reflection on risk and reward.
Thanks again for a valid argument and a great read.


MountaingirlBC - Aug 17, 2006 5:46 am - Hasn't voted

Re: well spoken

I've read 'Into the Wild' but I'll have to check out David Roberts' book. thx!


ShaunR - Aug 17, 2006 6:14 am - Voted 10/10

"Experience is what you get when you don't have experience."

In a Utah county full of nearly 12,000' peaks, rivers, lakes, caves and trails, the vast majority of Search and Rescue calls are not for extreme sports enthusiasts, but for amateurs. Boy scouts, college students, 4 wheelers, and hikers with twisted ankles or dehydration or caught in cliff bands that experienced climbers would know to avoid create well over 90% of the missions.

The most extended and expensive searches tend to be avalanches with vicitms out on steep slopes during extreme danger days and without beacons - the last one took 6 months for the snow to melt enough to see his coat sleeve through the snow from an airplane. The big one before lasted from Christmas to Easter Sunday before the final victim's hand melted through the snowpack.

So when you're talking about costs - at least in my neck of the mountains - it's not generally the fault of mountaineers, climbers, and other extreme sports enthusiasts, but of the general public out in an environment they aren't really prepared for.


MoapaPk - Aug 18, 2006 1:49 am - Voted 10/10


There are lots of snowboarders around here who are very fit, and tend to go amazing places to hit fresh powder. I don't think many carry beacons or avylungs. They were very active in the spring 2005 season, when we had about 20 avalanches, including one that caused a fatality. I guess I would say those folks are extreme sport enthusiasts, AND members of the public.

I don't think of roped class 5 climbing as being risky -- if done correctly. Class 4 without protection is possibly much more risky.


MountaingirlBC - Aug 18, 2006 2:04 am - Hasn't voted

Re: Re:

"Class 4 without protection is possibly much more risky."

Totally agree. I was thinking the very same thing while on some very exposed Class 4 this week.

Arthur Digbee

Arthur Digbee - May 2, 2007 10:03 pm - Hasn't voted

very interesting

This was a very interesting article and subsequent discussion, I'm glad I came across it. Thanks to MGBC and to the others who have done their research on these topics, and thanks to MGBC for kicking it all off!

I did find it a bit hard to read the text because (a) I'm getting old; and (b) there weren't any pictures. It would be fun, I'm sure, to select a few pictures for including in the article.


iceisnice - Jan 27, 2008 1:44 pm - Hasn't voted


Its all relative. "Risk" is actually "accepted risk", and what we are willing to accept only has meaning and value to ourselves. That is the beauty of climbing. A "5.6 leader" can get the same degree of danger/risk/etc when climbing a big 5.7 route as you top elite alpinist climbing a 5,000ft 5.11/M8/WI6X route. As your skills and abilities advance you can continually find challenges that will fall within your "accpeted risk" zone.

weightloss - Mar 10, 2018 9:20 am - Hasn't voted

worth to read..

good one... me too i like adventures.. thanks for sharing beautiful article.. weight loss diet

Viewing: 41-52 of 52