|
viciado
Jan 13, 2011, 8:24 PM
Post #26 of 40
(1372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 429
|
rtwilli4 wrote: In the end it just said it's OK to not really know. To me that is just giving in and allowing future generations to do whatever they want.
Well thought out and well written. There is certainly merit in the questions you ask and we may even have a certainly obligation to discuss them as a community. But whatever "we" decide (if in fact we can, per the article), aren't future generations going to do whatever they want anyway? I think the best we can do is have the discussion you want. I would hope that any conclusions we come to would inform and influence future generations, but I can't presume to expect that they will follow our lead however well founded and thought out it might be.
|
|
|
|
|
potreroed
Jan 13, 2011, 10:07 PM
Post #27 of 40
(1340 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1454
|
I have not read the article but reading these comments I have to agree with rtwilli. As one who bolts long multi-pitch routes on limestone I have removed sharp edges where necessary and created holds by removing vegetation and cleaning out pockets but I would never create a hold or a pocket where one didn't exist naturally.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 13, 2011, 10:23 PM
Post #28 of 40
(1335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
lena_chita wrote: From purely phylosophical point of view, there is no difference between "comfortizing" a sharp edge and chipping. Comfortizing is the same chipping-- only on the smaller scale and done on the edge of a pre-existing hold. And trundling off loose blocks, while done for the sake of safety, can often create new holds where there weren't any, to begin with. And drilling is drilling, whether making a hole to place a bolt in, or making a hole for fingers. I don't think a non-climber would see a distinction and understand why modifying rock in one way is O.K. and modifying it in another way is taboo.
I'm sorry, but with all due respect (and I really do respect you lena) this is complete BS. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying
In reply to: From a purely philosophical point of view, there is no difference between killing a lettuce for food or hunting aboriginals in the jungle for sport. Harvesting lettuce is the same as hunting backwards people -- only on the smaller scale and done in a field where it's easier. And firing a problem employee who's disruptive and violent, while done for the sake of the company, can often create a big bonus for me as a manager since I cut down on costs. And making someone miserable, whether it's the crazy employee I fired, or the guy at the party we all ganged up on until he left in tears. I don't think an alien visiting from another civilization would see a distinction and understand why one thing is O.K. and the other thing is taboo.
You are doing the same thing as the author - completely ignoring matters of scale, complex issues of intent, social conventions, and really meaningful contexts. Instead you're artificially throwing everything into the same pot, and it does nothing to clarify any of the issues involved. Rather it simply obscures the real situations that give rise to the situations, and makes it harder to form any kind of basis to judge which practices should be condoned, and which ones should be avoided/shunned.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Jan 13, 2011, 10:36 PM
Post #29 of 40
(1326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
cracklover wrote: lena_chita wrote: From purely phylosophical point of view, there is no difference between "comfortizing" a sharp edge and chipping. Comfortizing is the same chipping-- only on the smaller scale and done on the edge of a pre-existing hold. And trundling off loose blocks, while done for the sake of safety, can often create new holds where there weren't any, to begin with. And drilling is drilling, whether making a hole to place a bolt in, or making a hole for fingers. I don't think a non-climber would see a distinction and understand why modifying rock in one way is O.K. and modifying it in another way is taboo. I'm sorry, but with all due respect (and I really do respect you lena) this is complete BS. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying In reply to: From a purely philosophical point of view, there is no difference between killing a lettuce for food or hunting aboriginals in the jungle for sport. Harvesting lettuce is the same as hunting backwards people -- only on the smaller scale and done in a field where it's easier. And firing a problem employee who's disruptive and violent, while done for the sake of the company, can often create a big bonus for me as a manager since I cut down on costs. And making someone miserable, whether it's the crazy employee I fired, or the guy at the party we all ganged up on until he left in tears. I don't think an alien visiting from another civilization would see a distinction and understand why one thing is O.K. and the other thing is taboo. You are doing the same thing as the author - completely ignoring matters of scale, complex issues of intent, social conventions, and really meaningful contexts. Instead you're artificially throwing everything into the same pot, and it does nothing to clarify any of the issues involved. Rather it simply obscures the real situations that give rise to the situations, and makes it harder to form any kind of basis to judge which practices should be condoned, and which ones should be avoided/shunned. GO
She said "non-climber". the assumption being that they wouldn't understand the finer nuances that a climber would - at least I think that was her intention. For the purposes of this discussion do you care what a non-climber thinks? Even if they ultimately have a say in the access and be swayed by perceived damage to the rock?
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Jan 14, 2011, 2:45 AM
Post #30 of 40
(1290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
boadman wrote: Here's the wikipedia definition of ethics: "Ethics, also known as moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice, etc." In my opinion putting holes in rocks is not a question of morality. Does it hurt the rock if you chip a crimp into it or drill a pocket? Does it hurt anyone else? Does it hurt the environment? It is, however, an aesthetic issue because in general it does make the climb uglier, and less entertaining. Ethics make sense when people discuss their approach to an ascent, i.e. did they lie or obfuscate how they achieved the ascent, did they pull on gear, etc.
See the bolded terms above. That's why I think that it is in fact about ethics.
I think that there (is? should be?) something virtuous about the decision that you can't climb this without adding holds that aren't there and therefore leaving it for somebody else who can.
Is there an ill-defined area between chipping and cleaning? Between hold manufacturing and making a hold less sharp? Sure, of course there is. Does the fact that there isn't an immediate and obvious place to draw a distinction between two things mean that the task is impossible? Of course not.
And given all of that, I disagree completely with your dichotomy between Ethics and Aesthetics. I think you have incorrectly separated two things that have, in actuality, been together since the very beginnings of Philosophy. Aristotle writes about Virtue as something with an aesthetic quality. One needs the same aesthetic eye to see beauty in a painting as to see virtue in a person. At least according to Aristotle.
And, though I don't agree with everything the guy wrote, I think he's on to something. Most people don't have a well-defined and ordered set of ethics they refer to in order to call something "good" or "bad". They refer instead on something like an aesthetic judgment to guide them. You know it when you see it. That doesn't mean we don't have millions of pages written on the subject of ethics, or nearly as many pages written on the subject of aesthetics. Sure, its more complicated than that alone. But again, that's no reason to discount those ideas.
Isn't that something that many on this site use to identify the n00b- they are the person who asks questions about a set of black and white flow-charts that will help them distinguish what makes a good anchor and bad anchor, about pre-hung draws or rap-bolting, or any other myriad things to which the answer is almost always "It Depends". And it DOES depend. But that doesn't mean that we can't call an action acceptable in one instance and unacceptable in another. We can, and do (and should). Even though the line is quite fuzzy, and in fact moves from situation to situation.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jan 14, 2011, 4:03 PM
Post #31 of 40
(1261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
cracklover wrote: What you are saying is the equivalent of saying In reply to: From a purely philosophical point of view, there is no difference between killing a lettuce for food or hunting aboriginals in the jungle for sport. Harvesting lettuce is the same as hunting backwards people -- only on the smaller scale and done in a field where it's easier. And firing a problem employee who's disruptive and violent, while done for the sake of the company, can often create a big bonus for me as a manager since I cut down on costs. And making someone miserable, whether it's the crazy employee I fired, or the guy at the party we all ganged up on until he left in tears. I don't think an alien visiting from another civilization would see a distinction and understand why one thing is O.K. and the other thing is taboo. You are doing the same thing as the author - completely ignoring matters of scale, complex issues of intent, social conventions, and really meaningful contexts. Instead you're artificially throwing everything into the same pot, and it does nothing to clarify any of the issues involved. Rather it simply obscures the real situations that give rise to the situations, and makes it harder to form any kind of basis to judge which practices should be condoned, and which ones should be avoided/shunned. GO
As I said, it was looking from a non-climber point of view, and I do believe than a non-climber would not see a difference between different kinds of rock modification, just like an alien visiting from Andromeda galaxy might not see a meaningful difference between a lettuce and a human.
But in any case, I do not think that comfortizing and chipping are as far removed from each other as lettuce and an Australian aboriginal person, so I do not agree with your interpretation.
I would put it more like a distinction between a shrimp and a buffalo.
There are people who think that killing a shrimp for food is as bad as killing a buffalo. We call them vegans.
There are people who think that it is all food, and good. Omnivores.
And then there are people who distinguish between O.K. and not O.K. to kill for food on a rather arbitrary line. Some say it is O.K. with invertebrates, but draw the line on vertebrates. (shrimp O.K., fish--not). Some draw the line on cold-blooded vs warm blooded (Fish and other seafood O.K., but not chicken or mammals), others draw a line on "having a face" ( e.i. chicken, fish and the invertebrates are O.K., but not pigs, goats, sheep, deer, cows and buffalo)
In my view, the debate between chippers and non-chippers in not a debate between people who think everyone should subsist on IV feeding tubes b.c even lettuce is wrong to kill, and the people who think cannibalism is O.K. It is a debate between vegans and omnivores, with a lot of people falling somewhere in between.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 14, 2011, 4:08 PM
Post #32 of 40
(1260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
olderic wrote: cracklover wrote: lena_chita wrote: From purely phylosophical point of view, there is no difference between "comfortizing" a sharp edge and chipping. Comfortizing is the same chipping-- only on the smaller scale and done on the edge of a pre-existing hold. And trundling off loose blocks, while done for the sake of safety, can often create new holds where there weren't any, to begin with. And drilling is drilling, whether making a hole to place a bolt in, or making a hole for fingers. I don't think a non-climber would see a distinction and understand why modifying rock in one way is O.K. and modifying it in another way is taboo. I'm sorry, but with all due respect (and I really do respect you lena) this is complete BS. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying In reply to: From a purely philosophical point of view, there is no difference between killing a lettuce for food or hunting aboriginals in the jungle for sport. Harvesting lettuce is the same as hunting backwards people -- only on the smaller scale and done in a field where it's easier. And firing a problem employee who's disruptive and violent, while done for the sake of the company, can often create a big bonus for me as a manager since I cut down on costs. And making someone miserable, whether it's the crazy employee I fired, or the guy at the party we all ganged up on until he left in tears. I don't think an alien visiting from another civilization would see a distinction and understand why one thing is O.K. and the other thing is taboo. You are doing the same thing as the author - completely ignoring matters of scale, complex issues of intent, social conventions, and really meaningful contexts. Instead you're artificially throwing everything into the same pot, and it does nothing to clarify any of the issues involved. Rather it simply obscures the real situations that give rise to the situations, and makes it harder to form any kind of basis to judge which practices should be condoned, and which ones should be avoided/shunned. GO She said "non-climber". the assumption being that they wouldn't understand the finer nuances that a climber would - at least I think that was her intention. For the purposes of this discussion do you care what a non-climber thinks? Even if they ultimately have a say in the access and be swayed by perceived damage to the rock?
You're adding in a new thread that has had nothing to do with this discussion so far. The going assumption has been that the question has been about climbing-ethics. Not how various practices might or might not be perceived by a hostile landowner. That's a whole different kettle of fish.
Returning to the narrow question of climber-ethics...
For the purpose of discriminating between best and worst practices in putting up an FA, no, I do not think a non-climber would have much useful input. Climbing ethics are arrived at precisely because they are (mostly) agreed upon to result in the best outcome over the long haul for the most climbers.
Perhaps the alien in the above scenario would side with the lettuce, and not the aboriginal. Should that sway our opinion as to what is right or wrong for us humans here on Earth?
No.
Lumping everything together - as would an outsider to climbing who has no sense of the history of the sport, geologic constraints of the rock type, methods of protection, etc - only makes it *more* difficult to determine, in tricky climbing-ethic considerations, what's better or worse.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 14, 2011, 4:22 PM
Post #33 of 40
(1250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Lena, your whole means of looking at the question seems to be predicated on the idea that it's best to try to obscure all ethical considerations behind a screen of "well who knows - everyone thinks something slightly different, so nobody really knows anything". I think that is A - wrong, and B - extremely unhelpful.
Your ignorance of some of the particular accepted ethical stances in far away places is no reason to throw up your hands and say - wow, there are all kinds of accepted practices out there I had no idea about - I guess all the guidelines I thought had meaning really don't. You're wrong, your local practices do have meaning. And those other ones from far away places have just as much meaning given the circumstances within which they exist (of which you are ignorant, and the author of the argument purposefully tried to obscure them!)
GO
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jan 14, 2011, 4:35 PM
Post #34 of 40
(1243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
I wouldn't kill a dog to eat it but if it were cooked and put on a plate in front of me, in a place where they ate dog, I'd eat it.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jan 14, 2011, 5:39 PM
Post #35 of 40
(1224 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
cracklover wrote: Lena, your whole means of looking at the question seems to be predicated on the idea that it's best to try to obscure all ethical considerations behind a screen of "well who knows - everyone thinks something slightly different, so nobody really knows anything". I think that is A - wrong, and B - extremely unhelpful. Your ignorance of some of the particular accepted ethical stances in far away places is no reason to throw up your hands and say - wow, there are all kinds of accepted practices out there I had no idea about - I guess all the guidelines I thought had meaning really don't. You're wrong, your local practices do have meaning. And those other ones from far away places have just as much meaning given the circumstances within which they exist (of which you are ignorant, and the author of the argument purposefully tried to obscure them!) GO
I am not sure how you read this into my post.
I know local practices have meanings and have been arrived at by means of consensus, both in places that I am familiar with, and in places I am not familiar with. And I am aware that those practices are different in different areas, because the circumstances and the history are different.
I also know that in every area with established local practices there is some (often quite large) variation of opinion on what is acceptable, and whether certain things fall within the established accepted practice, or fall outside the continuum.
Example: Sure, gluing might be considered O.K. in certain area-- but that doesn't preclude a fierce argument about whether on this particular route in this particular place it was better to glue or to break off the unstable hold, and even if the gluing was acceptable, did the FA do a good job of it, or botched it.
If everyone thought exactly the same and agreed on the exact same practices, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It is not the same as saying "everyone thinks differently, so no one really knows anything". It is about knowing what different opinions are out there, what opinions are accepted locally in the areas I am familiar with/have impact on, and what opinion I hold.
I have read that article as an opinion. I have decided that the argument makes sense to me and has some merit. It doesn't mean that I approve of drilling and chipping everything in sight, that I think that the practice should become wide-spread at every crag around the world, regardless of local standards, nor does it mean that I am going to go out and do it tomorrow at my local area that does not approve of chipping and is not suitable for chipping, anyway, being soft sandstone.
But it does mean that if I climb a route someday somewhere and 70 feet up come across something that looks like a manufactured pocket, I would not automaticly say: "eeewwww, how horrible, whoever drilled it should be ashamed of him/herself and never allowed near any rock". I would look at the route as a whole and think:"Did I like this route? Am I happy that this line is here for me to climb, or would I have rather walked past this wall without there being a route?" And if the answer is yes, it feels like a high-quality line, then I would say thank you to the route developer, whoever he might be.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jan 14, 2011, 9:08 PM
Post #37 of 40
(1176 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
cracklover wrote: kachoong wrote: I wouldn't kill a dog to eat it but if it were cooked and put on a plate in front of me, in a place where they ate dog, I'd eat it. Pretty much the same as Lena says in the post below yours. BTW, I've eaten sheep brain and whale blubber. Both were disgusting (IMHO). GO
LOL, but this is exaclty why I am saying that this is a theoretical/phylosophical discussion.
You come from the POV that a difference between comfortizing and chipping is the same as difference between lettuce and human in culinary terms. The first is widely accepted, the second one is simply not, and the few known cases of cannibalism are abhorrent, reprehensible, unexcusable, and every decent human being will instinctively understand that it is so.
I come from POV that the difference between comfortizing and chipping is a difference between a shrimp and dog/bear/kangaroo in culinary terms.
I find the idea of eating a dog distasteful, I know with 100% certainty that the practice is not accepted in my local restaurants, and that i would get in trouble if I were to head to the pet shop, buy a puppy and serve it to my guests at a party. Given the abundance of protein sources around me, it is unlikely that eating dog will ever catch on around here, even if everyone gets convinced that it is theoretically O.K. But at the same time I cannot list a convincing reason why people who eat dogs shouldn't do it, if it is acceptable for them and those arond them, and I cannot formally exclude a possibility that I might, under certain circumstances, eat a dog.
|
|
|
|
|
kyote321
Jan 15, 2011, 4:23 AM
Post #38 of 40
(1151 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 636
|
Would you build a trail to the crag you are climbing, with steps and erosion maintenance, or let it get better with more traffic? a route is the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jan 15, 2011, 4:49 PM
Post #39 of 40
(1109 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
kyote321 wrote: Would you build a trail to the crag you are climbing, with steps and erosion maintenance, or let it get better with more traffic? a route is the same thing.
How can a trail to a crag get "better" with more traffic compared to a trail designed with steps and erosion maintenence? From my experience with trail maintenence, trails get "better" once they have these issues dealt with after they have degraded through continual use. Your point doesn't make sense and so it's not the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
kyote321
Jan 15, 2011, 5:15 PM
Post #40 of 40
(1101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 636
|
That's my point, although the way I wrote it is confusing. Many route developers excuse not cleaning, including comfortizing, removing loose rock, and gluing loose holds, because the route will 'get better with traffic.'
The analogy (non food) is that you wouldn't expect an unclear, unsafe approach to the climb to be the ideal, yet that is what many climbers and developers expect and demand from the climb itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
