Though I am a little embarassed to be one of the folks who seeks risk and adventure in the hills, which does nothing to further mankind. I can't help but envy those entrepreneurs and inventors in business or science who have similar dopamine receptors! :-p.
To fantasize a bit, now everyone will want these receptors. The modern, rock-climbing, surfing CEO making synergistic deals on the SAT phone from Baffin Island is a mass-marketed ideal. Get ready for the newly-recepted, amped up hordes seeking to emulate the climbers on the cliffs!
I realy dont think you know what your talking about when it comes to receptors or THE BRAIN.IF you would know what the hell bc was thalking about? go back to school>
Hi Paul, I was referring to the neural receptors that MountainGirlBC mentioned in her article. From the text: "...links the D2 and D4 dopamine receptor genes to risk-taking behaviour." Perhaps we should go back to school together!
I'm with you on this Chief. I don't consider myself a risk taker either. But I know that that's just my own perception and that most people would not agree with me. If I'm doing it for the adreneline rush or the thrills, I'm unaware of it. This isn't just something I choose to do. It's who I am. But that doesn't change the fact that I am preceived by many to be "reckless and irrisponsible." The article was written more to address these types of judgements that we face from people who don't 'get it.'
well, i think it also depends where you live. i live in switzerland and here, most people appreciate (extreme)mountainsports, since it's a large income sector for us (tourism). sure there are some reckless-people here too who put themselves and others i danger while not having the right skills for their adventure or simply overestimate their abilities.
one of the best examples is the matterhorn. every year, at least a dozen of people die because they weren't prepared well, or didn't have the right equipment, etc. for their adventure. most of them are mountaineers from other countries. the point is, our national rescue sends them, when they are rescued, or their relatives a bill at the end. in my point of view a totally fair action.
see, we have this system were you pay about $30 a year (to the national rescue association called REGA)and if you have an accident or get lost they will rescue you, and the expenses are covered (solidary-system). even if you are not swiss (depends on the country) you can get this card.
logically some smart-asses thought that they can pull shit even if they had a REGA card, well guess what! if they see that you were poorly equipped or someother things look quiet "wrong", they might do a police investigation. and if they find out that you were acting careless or reckless, they might charge you with a fine (...if you are still alive).
Interesting point about your economy. It's becoming more important here (Vancouver, BC) especially with the Olympics coming up so I will be interested to see if public perception shifts any in the coming years. Here, no one gets charged for rescues... the thinking behind it being that people won't call for help or will wait too long to if they know they're going to get a bill. This could be the subject of another article come to think of it. I'd like to see some kind of tax imposed on tourists (since they seem to be the ones who get in the most trouble and need the most rescuing as you've pointed out) to cover rescue fees. Then make it free for the rest of us. You make an excellent point about preparation. I think if you were obviously stupid you should get a bill.
I have done a lot of research in this area and found this article to be a great jump off point for people who want to look further into the subject. Wonderful write up!
In 1982, at the age of 29, I was nearly killed in a mountaineering accident. I could give a list of my injuries, the amount of time spent in the ICU, the hospital, and rehab, etc., but in a way all of that misses the point -- because once the physical pain is over it is over. It is the philosophical and psychological issues that last much longer.
Suffice it to say that I was told that the technical medical term for my condition was "train wreck." By most conventional medical wisdom I should have died before reaching the hospital, but for some reason I didn't. Interestingly in light of granite4brains' post, it later emerged that the closest they came during the whole series of events to actually losing me was caused by a nurse's mistake.
As for the public costs, the episode cost my insurance company about $40,000, and I paid several thousand more for deductibles, copays, etc. I seem to recall that I was billed a couple of thousand dollars for the rescue, but I may be wrong about that because it would have been so thoroughly mixed in with all of the other charges.
While I was still in the hospital, I happened to see a news item on television, describing how police in India had shot and killed some people by firing into a crowd during a food riot. I had to ask myself: How could they have gone to this much trouble, invested this much money and technology, to keep me alive when they could have easily written me off, and when people were still getting killed solely for the crime of being pissed off because they didn't have enough to eat. I still haven't found a good answer to that. I'm grateful for this MGBC article because it comes the closest of anything I've seen to providing any justification at all.
For a while, while still in rehab, I promised myself that I'd never go near any similar activities again. But I started trail hiking once I was back in shape -- or even as a way of getting back in shape -- expanded to exploring off-trail in canyons in southern Utah and northern Arizona, which became my main obsession through the late eighties and nineties, and, in the last few years, I've been going back to the mountains more than at any time since my twenties. I'm still far more conservative in my choices than I was in my twenties but, yes, I think that I'm in better shape than most people my age and a lot who are younger. Maybe I'll outlive many of them as a result.
I'm not sure to this day that I learned anything from the experience that could benefit anyone else. If I could make one suggestion, it would be this: Don't become so obsessed with the official goals -- bagging all of the Colorado fourteeners, finishing all of the Seven Summits or even any of them, etc. -- goals which are largely set by peer pressure, media, websites, and other people -- that you lose sight of your own reasons for doing what you're doing or the beauty of where you are. If you're not on the path that you belong on, or if the beauty is no longer there, then there is no justification and it's not worth the risk or the bother.
Thanks for sharing your personal perspective GJS and especially for this:
"Don't become so obsessed with the official goals -- bagging all of the Colorado fourteeners, finishing all of the Seven Summits or even any of them, etc. -- goals which are largely set by peer pressure, media, websites, and other people -- that you lose sight of your own reasons for doing what you're doing or the beauty of where you are. If you're not on the path that you belong on, or if the beauty is no longer there, then there is no justification and it's not worth the risk or the bother."
It's something I had to call myself on this year. It's easy to get caught up in it for the wrong reasons. If you aren't doing it for your own deep personal reasons, you're quite right... it's not worth it... not worth the risk to yourself or the pain we put our loved ones through when things go terribly wrong.
I saw something along these lines on TV not long ago and it was interesting. I had always found it odd that most people look at climbers/mountaineers/skiers as thrill seekers as if that is the only reason we do these things. I will be the first to admit that there is something not normal with a lot us, and maybe thrill seeking is behind it and I don't know it myself, but thrills are not what I am usually looking for in the mountains. I guess I'm usually looking for myself. Just my thoughts, but this is interesting, thank you for posting it.
We need a follow-up on "Extreme Sports Drinks and Their Role in Society". In particular, I've been wondering about Gatorade X series. How are these drinks different from normal Gatorade? I bought some green X, and as far as I can tell, it contains the same small amount of electrolytes and sugar.
"wonder if anyone has ever bothered to consider the cumulative health care costs associated with such a life style vs that of a climber."
it would be a very interesting comparison to make. i'm with you in thinking that the mcdonalds eating dick cheneys of the world end up costing society more (at least where there is socialistic health care). the problem comes again (and always) to the way public opinions are swayed: only the most obvious things get any attention. it is easy for the public to isolate climbing and other extreme sports as voluntary health hazards, while obesity and sedentary lifestyles (also self-inflicted for the most part) are more passive in causing health problems.
the public would be much more sympathetic in dealing with, say, a 240 lb woman suffering from type ii diabetes and atherosclerosis than a 'reckless' backcountry skier buried in an avalanche. it's because the folly of the skier is so obvious: he knowingly went out of bounds, while the undoing of the obese woman was a consequence of years of unhealthy living and self-indulgence.
both voluntary actions, one is just more obvious.
you make a good point that often times the extreme sports that hurt otherwise healthy people are the very reason that they were healthy in the first place.
thanks for this very well written and informative article; i hadn't thought about it from this perspective before:)
I'm not sure they (insurance companies) are yet singling out back-country skiers, but if they do, it is probably because that behavior is easily identifiable, and has a clearly-defined dollar value if the skier must be rescued from an avalanche. The health costs associated with lifestyle choices are a lot more vague, and harder to assess from a distant insurance office.
Nonetheless, really obese people, who try to buy health insurance (outside of a "share-the-risk" big employer setting) are likely to find really high premiums. I know two such people who were told they were uninsurable (one already had type ii diabetes).
Even more striking is the actual cost of "unhealthy people" to society. In the 80's, it was found that smokers actually had a lower net health care cost than non-smokers, because smokers tended to die quickly at an earlier age. Most health care costs in the US are consumed by the last 6 months of peoples' lives.
And now for the piece de resistance. There is a very poor correlation bewteen atherosclerosis and diet. The main correlation is with "bad" genetics. I've known marathoner-vegetarians who had to have quadruple bypass operations. The original Framingham study, which everyone likes to quote, showed a measly 36% correlation between serum cholesterol and thickness of atherosclerotic coating. Buried deep in that study was a failure to find any dietary link to serum cholesterol levels.
And then there was the MRFIT study, in which a fraction the patients were guided and given dietary and health interventions, successfully increasing their fraction of healthy foods, increasing their exercise, vitamin intake, etc. Result: the treated patients showed no increased longevity compared to the control group -- none.
MountaingirlBC - Aug 10, 2006 6:37 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: A copy of theoryInteresting... I didn't come upon the TypeE theory while I was researching.
igneouscarl - Aug 10, 2006 7:13 am - Voted 10/10
InterestingI like the idea that 'the right to risk is unalienable'. Nice article, thanks.
paulh - Aug 10, 2006 9:01 am - Voted 10/10
E or Tare you ready to say who is right or wrong. I dont think so. you better check into my health plan before you judge
mvs - Aug 10, 2006 9:23 am - Voted 10/10
great articleThough I am a little embarassed to be one of the folks who seeks risk and adventure in the hills, which does nothing to further mankind. I can't help but envy those entrepreneurs and inventors in business or science who have similar dopamine receptors! :-p.
To fantasize a bit, now everyone will want these receptors. The modern, rock-climbing, surfing CEO making synergistic deals on the SAT phone from Baffin Island is a mass-marketed ideal. Get ready for the newly-recepted, amped up hordes seeking to emulate the climbers on the cliffs!
paulh - Aug 10, 2006 9:44 am - Voted 10/10
not quiteI realy dont think you know what your talking about when it comes to receptors or THE BRAIN.IF you would know what the hell bc was thalking about? go back to school>
MoapaPk - Aug 10, 2006 3:05 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: not quiteMaybe you could give us a few schooling pointers, starting with "your" vs. "you're".
mvs - Aug 10, 2006 3:33 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: not quiteHi Paul, I was referring to the neural receptors that MountainGirlBC mentioned in her article. From the text: "...links the D2 and D4 dopamine receptor genes to risk-taking behaviour." Perhaps we should go back to school together!
supermarmot - Aug 15, 2006 3:05 am - Voted 10/10
Re: not quitehehehe
MountaingirlBC - Aug 10, 2006 6:42 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Interesting Perspective...I'm with you on this Chief. I don't consider myself a risk taker either. But I know that that's just my own perception and that most people would not agree with me. If I'm doing it for the adreneline rush or the thrills, I'm unaware of it. This isn't just something I choose to do. It's who I am. But that doesn't change the fact that I am preceived by many to be "reckless and irrisponsible." The article was written more to address these types of judgements that we face from people who don't 'get it.'
Cy Kaicener - Aug 10, 2006 7:45 pm - Voted 9/10
Living on the EdgeExcellent Insight. I enjoyed reading it. Lets hope that bragging rights dont replace enjoyment of the mountains
rhyang - Aug 10, 2006 11:15 pm - Hasn't voted
There are two kinds of people in the world...Those who dichotomize, and those who don't !
:)
piz simon - Aug 12, 2006 8:34 am - Hasn't voted
interesting thoughtswell, i think it also depends where you live. i live in switzerland and here, most people appreciate (extreme)mountainsports, since it's a large income sector for us (tourism). sure there are some reckless-people here too who put themselves and others i danger while not having the right skills for their adventure or simply overestimate their abilities.
one of the best examples is the matterhorn. every year, at least a dozen of people die because they weren't prepared well, or didn't have the right equipment, etc. for their adventure. most of them are mountaineers from other countries. the point is, our national rescue sends them, when they are rescued, or their relatives a bill at the end. in my point of view a totally fair action.
see, we have this system were you pay about $30 a year (to the national rescue association called REGA)and if you have an accident or get lost they will rescue you, and the expenses are covered (solidary-system). even if you are not swiss (depends on the country) you can get this card.
logically some smart-asses thought that they can pull shit even if they had a REGA card, well guess what! if they see that you were poorly equipped or someother things look quiet "wrong", they might do a police investigation. and if they find out that you were acting careless or reckless, they might charge you with a fine (...if you are still alive).
MountaingirlBC - Aug 12, 2006 6:05 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: interesting thoughtsInteresting point about your economy. It's becoming more important here (Vancouver, BC) especially with the Olympics coming up so I will be interested to see if public perception shifts any in the coming years. Here, no one gets charged for rescues... the thinking behind it being that people won't call for help or will wait too long to if they know they're going to get a bill. This could be the subject of another article come to think of it. I'd like to see some kind of tax imposed on tourists (since they seem to be the ones who get in the most trouble and need the most rescuing as you've pointed out) to cover rescue fees. Then make it free for the rest of us. You make an excellent point about preparation. I think if you were obviously stupid you should get a bill.
Dustiano - Aug 12, 2006 1:15 pm - Voted 10/10
Type-E or T PersonalityI have done a lot of research in this area and found this article to be a great jump off point for people who want to look further into the subject. Wonderful write up!
GJS - Aug 13, 2006 3:48 am - Voted 10/10
Having Been ThereIn 1982, at the age of 29, I was nearly killed in a mountaineering accident. I could give a list of my injuries, the amount of time spent in the ICU, the hospital, and rehab, etc., but in a way all of that misses the point -- because once the physical pain is over it is over. It is the philosophical and psychological issues that last much longer.
Suffice it to say that I was told that the technical medical term for my condition was "train wreck." By most conventional medical wisdom I should have died before reaching the hospital, but for some reason I didn't. Interestingly in light of granite4brains' post, it later emerged that the closest they came during the whole series of events to actually losing me was caused by a nurse's mistake.
As for the public costs, the episode cost my insurance company about $40,000, and I paid several thousand more for deductibles, copays, etc. I seem to recall that I was billed a couple of thousand dollars for the rescue, but I may be wrong about that because it would have been so thoroughly mixed in with all of the other charges.
While I was still in the hospital, I happened to see a news item on television, describing how police in India had shot and killed some people by firing into a crowd during a food riot. I had to ask myself: How could they have gone to this much trouble, invested this much money and technology, to keep me alive when they could have easily written me off, and when people were still getting killed solely for the crime of being pissed off because they didn't have enough to eat. I still haven't found a good answer to that. I'm grateful for this MGBC article because it comes the closest of anything I've seen to providing any justification at all.
For a while, while still in rehab, I promised myself that I'd never go near any similar activities again. But I started trail hiking once I was back in shape -- or even as a way of getting back in shape -- expanded to exploring off-trail in canyons in southern Utah and northern Arizona, which became my main obsession through the late eighties and nineties, and, in the last few years, I've been going back to the mountains more than at any time since my twenties. I'm still far more conservative in my choices than I was in my twenties but, yes, I think that I'm in better shape than most people my age and a lot who are younger. Maybe I'll outlive many of them as a result.
I'm not sure to this day that I learned anything from the experience that could benefit anyone else. If I could make one suggestion, it would be this: Don't become so obsessed with the official goals -- bagging all of the Colorado fourteeners, finishing all of the Seven Summits or even any of them, etc. -- goals which are largely set by peer pressure, media, websites, and other people -- that you lose sight of your own reasons for doing what you're doing or the beauty of where you are. If you're not on the path that you belong on, or if the beauty is no longer there, then there is no justification and it's not worth the risk or the bother.
MountaingirlBC - Aug 13, 2006 4:45 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Having Been ThereThanks for sharing your personal perspective GJS and especially for this:
"Don't become so obsessed with the official goals -- bagging all of the Colorado fourteeners, finishing all of the Seven Summits or even any of them, etc. -- goals which are largely set by peer pressure, media, websites, and other people -- that you lose sight of your own reasons for doing what you're doing or the beauty of where you are. If you're not on the path that you belong on, or if the beauty is no longer there, then there is no justification and it's not worth the risk or the bother."
It's something I had to call myself on this year. It's easy to get caught up in it for the wrong reasons. If you aren't doing it for your own deep personal reasons, you're quite right... it's not worth it... not worth the risk to yourself or the pain we put our loved ones through when things go terribly wrong.
Thx again.
Aaron Dyer - Aug 13, 2006 9:57 pm - Hasn't voted
Thrill SeekingI saw something along these lines on TV not long ago and it was interesting. I had always found it odd that most people look at climbers/mountaineers/skiers as thrill seekers as if that is the only reason we do these things. I will be the first to admit that there is something not normal with a lot us, and maybe thrill seeking is behind it and I don't know it myself, but thrills are not what I am usually looking for in the mountains. I guess I'm usually looking for myself. Just my thoughts, but this is interesting, thank you for posting it.
MoapaPk - Aug 14, 2006 1:32 am - Voted 10/10
Extreme Sports DrinksWe need a follow-up on "Extreme Sports Drinks and Their Role in Society". In particular, I've been wondering about Gatorade X series. How are these drinks different from normal Gatorade? I bought some green X, and as far as I can tell, it contains the same small amount of electrolytes and sugar.
supermarmot - Aug 15, 2006 3:48 am - Voted 10/10
"wonder if anyone has ever bothered to consider the cumulative health care costs associated with such a life style vs that of a climber."it would be a very interesting comparison to make. i'm with you in thinking that the mcdonalds eating dick cheneys of the world end up costing society more (at least where there is socialistic health care). the problem comes again (and always) to the way public opinions are swayed: only the most obvious things get any attention. it is easy for the public to isolate climbing and other extreme sports as voluntary health hazards, while obesity and sedentary lifestyles (also self-inflicted for the most part) are more passive in causing health problems.
the public would be much more sympathetic in dealing with, say, a 240 lb woman suffering from type ii diabetes and atherosclerosis than a 'reckless' backcountry skier buried in an avalanche. it's because the folly of the skier is so obvious: he knowingly went out of bounds, while the undoing of the obese woman was a consequence of years of unhealthy living and self-indulgence.
both voluntary actions, one is just more obvious.
you make a good point that often times the extreme sports that hurt otherwise healthy people are the very reason that they were healthy in the first place.
thanks for this very well written and informative article; i hadn't thought about it from this perspective before:)
cheers,
david
MoapaPk - Aug 15, 2006 4:40 am - Voted 10/10
Re:I'm not sure they (insurance companies) are yet singling out back-country skiers, but if they do, it is probably because that behavior is easily identifiable, and has a clearly-defined dollar value if the skier must be rescued from an avalanche. The health costs associated with lifestyle choices are a lot more vague, and harder to assess from a distant insurance office.
Nonetheless, really obese people, who try to buy health insurance (outside of a "share-the-risk" big employer setting) are likely to find really high premiums. I know two such people who were told they were uninsurable (one already had type ii diabetes).
Even more striking is the actual cost of "unhealthy people" to society. In the 80's, it was found that smokers actually had a lower net health care cost than non-smokers, because smokers tended to die quickly at an earlier age. Most health care costs in the US are consumed by the last 6 months of peoples' lives.
And now for the piece de resistance. There is a very poor correlation bewteen atherosclerosis and diet. The main correlation is with "bad" genetics. I've known marathoner-vegetarians who had to have quadruple bypass operations. The original Framingham study, which everyone likes to quote, showed a measly 36% correlation between serum cholesterol and thickness of atherosclerotic coating. Buried deep in that study was a failure to find any dietary link to serum cholesterol levels.
And then there was the MRFIT study, in which a fraction the patients were guided and given dietary and health interventions, successfully increasing their fraction of healthy foods, increasing their exercise, vitamin intake, etc. Result: the treated patients showed no increased longevity compared to the control group -- none.