Free Solo and Economic Growth(johnhcochrane.blogspot.com)
johnhcochrane.blogspot.com
Free Solo and Economic Growth
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2019/05/free-solo-and-economic-growth.html
81 comments
> Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century British mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan climbers in 1350?
Even through the early 19th century climbers were much better than given credit for, part of this is also how grading shifts over time. I've experienced this first hand, climbed some old "HVS" routes (fairly easy grade) established in early 19th century in wales (UK), only to find them in the low extremes by modern standards, maybe E2/3 (no this wasn't mere sandbaging), on top of which they were using heavy gear, unsafe gear and mountain boots!
I have much respect for forgotten pioneers of climbing, they were much tougher than they appeared on the face of their accomplishments.
We all have little jokes in climbing when conditions make routes harder like rain, cold, dirt, birds whatever, "oh this bird shit turns it into a VS / E12 today".. it's silly, but when applied generally, it's true - every aspect that is different can make the same climb significantly harder or easier for others, those pioneers probably were climbing E9 for them.
Even through the early 19th century climbers were much better than given credit for, part of this is also how grading shifts over time. I've experienced this first hand, climbed some old "HVS" routes (fairly easy grade) established in early 19th century in wales (UK), only to find them in the low extremes by modern standards, maybe E2/3 (no this wasn't mere sandbaging), on top of which they were using heavy gear, unsafe gear and mountain boots!
I have much respect for forgotten pioneers of climbing, they were much tougher than they appeared on the face of their accomplishments.
We all have little jokes in climbing when conditions make routes harder like rain, cold, dirt, birds whatever, "oh this bird shit turns it into a VS / E12 today".. it's silly, but when applied generally, it's true - every aspect that is different can make the same climb significantly harder or easier for others, those pioneers probably were climbing E9 for them.
I learned out how to climb multi-pitch at Tahquitz, where the American grading system was first established. 5.9+ in that area is a terrifying grade. American grades were originally a closed system that topped out at 5.9. For a time climbers were climbing harder and harder routes, but rating them all 5.9. The system eventually got switched to be open ended, but grades are sticky and it definitely helps to know when a route was established in addition to what the guide book rating is.
Yes it was the same for the British adjectival trad system, ES used to be the top grade (after HVS) and this grade is now divided into an open ended scale E1-E11... but I think this probably caused some hard climbs to be categorised as HVS in an attempt to differentiate from the _really_ hard climbs in ES at the time. It's worth checking the FA date around this grade in old crags for this reason, but even being aware in my case - it was surprising just how much harder they can be.
Pre-modern climbers were likely much worse, for a variety of factors. First of all, in agrarian societies only a small segment of the population (mostly nobles) had any significant amounts of free time to pursue activities unrelated to food production. So the population of climbers was much smaller. On top of that, nutrition in general was a lot worse. Most of the population lived on diets just enough to survive. And lastly, literacy and information transfer was highly limited so climbers would not be able to teach each other their techniques as effectively and couldn't google the best climbing places.
Pre modern climbers wouldn’t have been climbing for recreation, but for survival. For example these guys are definitely not nobles with too much time on their hands:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/honey-hu...
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/honey-hu...
I was looking for the source, I can't find it, but there was a (I think 17th century) French monk was into climbing, and based on his diary entries and the local crags near the monastery they guessed he was pulling 5.13a, which, for climbers today usually it takes several years of dedicated training to get to that level.
> Alex is wearing modern climbing boots
As a climber this hurt me a bit to read. They're not boots, they're shoes John!
Also I'm glad that the movie is successful, and that the sport of climbing is getting mainstream attention, but personally I'm more impressed by the accomplishment of Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgeson in free-climbing the dawn wall with protection. In my mind that is a better representation of the highest level of achievement within the sport. Climbing without protection has more to do with being a daredevil than a climber, and while I understand why it's so impressive, I am conflicted about this particular achievement being celebrated and potentially emulated.
Pedantry aside, the article makes some interesting points.
As a climber this hurt me a bit to read. They're not boots, they're shoes John!
Also I'm glad that the movie is successful, and that the sport of climbing is getting mainstream attention, but personally I'm more impressed by the accomplishment of Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgeson in free-climbing the dawn wall with protection. In my mind that is a better representation of the highest level of achievement within the sport. Climbing without protection has more to do with being a daredevil than a climber, and while I understand why it's so impressive, I am conflicted about this particular achievement being celebrated and potentially emulated.
Pedantry aside, the article makes some interesting points.
Mislabelling climbing gear doesn't bug me, but this:
> Likewise, nobody in 1958 had any idea that you could hang by your thumbs and fingers to exploit little pieces of rock. This knowledge, demonstrated in the movie, emerged from the community of rock climbers and boulderers over time.
John Gill was sending V9 Boulder problems in 1958, in tennis shoes! He was off in his own little world and climbing way beyond the standards of the greater climbing community at the time.
Gill is regarded as the father of modern bouldering. He began as a gymnast and adapted modern training techniques from gymnastics to bouldering. He never had much interest in roped climbing or long routes, he was all about doing the hardest possible moves on stone.
> Likewise, nobody in 1958 had any idea that you could hang by your thumbs and fingers to exploit little pieces of rock. This knowledge, demonstrated in the movie, emerged from the community of rock climbers and boulderers over time.
John Gill was sending V9 Boulder problems in 1958, in tennis shoes! He was off in his own little world and climbing way beyond the standards of the greater climbing community at the time.
Gill is regarded as the father of modern bouldering. He began as a gymnast and adapted modern training techniques from gymnastics to bouldering. He never had much interest in roped climbing or long routes, he was all about doing the hardest possible moves on stone.
> Climbing without protection has more to do with being a daredevil than a climber.
I think it's important to recognise that there are many different ways to get up a piece of rock, these are a choice in "style", and each style has different challenges, different qualities etc. No one style is better than another, they are a personal choice, and this is part of what makes the sport so great... if you want to invent a new style, you can, it can be completely made up and personalized and obscure, perhaps it is even a one time thing, climb route x in slippers on christmas. People only argue about the validity of the most common styles, but they often forget they are only a style.
I think it's important to recognise that there are many different ways to get up a piece of rock, these are a choice in "style", and each style has different challenges, different qualities etc. No one style is better than another, they are a personal choice, and this is part of what makes the sport so great... if you want to invent a new style, you can, it can be completely made up and personalized and obscure, perhaps it is even a one time thing, climb route x in slippers on christmas. People only argue about the validity of the most common styles, but they often forget they are only a style.
I understand what you're saying, and I'm all for people finding what they enjoy and defining the sport on their own terms.
What gets me about free solo climbing is the sheer level of risk involved. Even for the best in the world, there are too many variables which simply can't be controlled in a climb like that, which is evidenced by the high rate of death for free-solo climbers.
I fully support anyone's right to decide to take on that risk if they are fully informed of it. Personally it would not sit well with my morals to risk my life in such a way over a completely optional, self-serving activity given the emotional and material cost my death would bring to the people who care about me.
Moreover, I have qualms about such pure risk being an avenue for fame and fortune.
What gets me about free solo climbing is the sheer level of risk involved. Even for the best in the world, there are too many variables which simply can't be controlled in a climb like that, which is evidenced by the high rate of death for free-solo climbers.
I fully support anyone's right to decide to take on that risk if they are fully informed of it. Personally it would not sit well with my morals to risk my life in such a way over a completely optional, self-serving activity given the emotional and material cost my death would bring to the people who care about me.
Moreover, I have qualms about such pure risk being an avenue for fame and fortune.
> Personally it would not sit well with my morals to risk my life in such a way over a completely optional, self-serving activity given the emotional and material cost my death would bring to the people who care about me.
"Personal" is indeed the key word, and people usually bring up the subject of family and loved ones... These are my thoughts on that: Our lives are finite, crossing the road incurs a certain level of risk of death, so it's much safer to stay at home and live as a prisoner your entire life. Any family demanding a loved one stay at home their entire life would be considered selfish.
Here's the thing: for some people, climbing, or even free soling is not an event to post on facebook, not a means to an end, not about fame... climbing is the other side of the road, it IS the end not the means, it is their destiny, to climb, not to "have climbed", it's what makes them happy and is why they can accept the risk.
What amount of risk is an aceptible trade for what style is entirely personal, not selfish.
"Personal" is indeed the key word, and people usually bring up the subject of family and loved ones... These are my thoughts on that: Our lives are finite, crossing the road incurs a certain level of risk of death, so it's much safer to stay at home and live as a prisoner your entire life. Any family demanding a loved one stay at home their entire life would be considered selfish.
Here's the thing: for some people, climbing, or even free soling is not an event to post on facebook, not a means to an end, not about fame... climbing is the other side of the road, it IS the end not the means, it is their destiny, to climb, not to "have climbed", it's what makes them happy and is why they can accept the risk.
What amount of risk is an aceptible trade for what style is entirely personal, not selfish.
I totally agree with this. Risk isn't a dirty word that should be avoided at all costs, it's just one aspect among many that has to be factored in to a decision. Soloing never clicked for me but I know a few people who love it and get a tremendous amount out of it; I would never presume to tell them they are wrong because I personally would do something different.
Years ago a friend of mine took a massive fall free soloing. He survived but was badly injured. I couldn't believe how many lectures he got from people who barely knew him, telling him how irresponsible he was. This is a guy who is a climbing fanatic, who had already had more amazing life experiences in his early 20s than most people do in their entire life.
It took a few years, but my friend eventually healed up enough to get back to serious climbing and has been back at it ever since. Would his life be better if he spent it all grinding out a safe but boring office job like most of his critics? I don't think so, but apparently many people disagree.
Years ago a friend of mine took a massive fall free soloing. He survived but was badly injured. I couldn't believe how many lectures he got from people who barely knew him, telling him how irresponsible he was. This is a guy who is a climbing fanatic, who had already had more amazing life experiences in his early 20s than most people do in their entire life.
It took a few years, but my friend eventually healed up enough to get back to serious climbing and has been back at it ever since. Would his life be better if he spent it all grinding out a safe but boring office job like most of his critics? I don't think so, but apparently many people disagree.
> ... the high rate of death for free-solo climbers.
Honnold made an interesting point in his latest (?) appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast: none of the top free solo climbers has died on a hard free solo climb (and many didn't die free solo climbing, or even climbing, at all).
And of course lots of people die climbing with ropes and protection too, even highly skilled and experience climbers.
Most people would probably consider any significant climb to be 'too risky'. As I disagree, I don't think I can reasonably fault anyone else for choosing some other higher level of risk as being 'too risky'.
Honnold made an interesting point in his latest (?) appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast: none of the top free solo climbers has died on a hard free solo climb (and many didn't die free solo climbing, or even climbing, at all).
And of course lots of people die climbing with ropes and protection too, even highly skilled and experience climbers.
Most people would probably consider any significant climb to be 'too risky'. As I disagree, I don't think I can reasonably fault anyone else for choosing some other higher level of risk as being 'too risky'.
I would have to see some statistics before I would find that argument convincing that free solo climbing is just one of many risky activities.
Also I don’t find it very compelling if climbers tend to die on easier free solo climbs rather than harder ones. I don’t really care what the grade was on a climb if it kills me.
Also I don’t find it very compelling if climbers tend to die on easier free solo climbs rather than harder ones. I don’t really care what the grade was on a climb if it kills me.
In that same podcast Alex said that he had more or less stopped soloing easy routes, reserving solos for rare big accomplishment climbs, which makes a lot of sense to me. As a long time climber, I can't think of a single climber who died on an extremely difficult solo, but can easily name a half dozen or more elite climbers who died on easy terrain.
I think this makes sense for an advanced free soloist like Alex - but does not invalidate soling easy climbs for everyone, part of the skill of free soloing is in training the mind, keeping control and conditioning yourself with the feeling of fear. You have to work up to that, and choosing lower grades helps you build those strengths - but continuing to climb them once they feel too easy (mentally), will leave you with relaxed focus, which is of course deadly.
this makes perfect sense to me...
there really aren't many that have died, maybe a couple dozen, so not much stat to draw info from. BUT they aren't always on the hardest routes, so the law of averages would dictate that they die on "average" difficulty routes.
there really aren't many that have died, maybe a couple dozen, so not much stat to draw info from. BUT they aren't always on the hardest routes, so the law of averages would dictate that they die on "average" difficulty routes.
I'm necromancing posts here but can't help it... Something else to keep in mind is what grade is viable to solo necessitates that on average they will be _very_ easy. No one solos at their hardest grade - to be clear, what Alex has soloed _is_ very hard and an incredible achievement, but in terms climbing with safety not super hard, and far under Alex's ability in absolute terms.
> I don’t really care what the grade was on a climb if it kills me.
You shouldn't climb at all then. People die just scrambling too. Even hiking can be dangerous.
Do you wear a helmet when you drive a car? That might actually be sensible. It's probably just too 'weird' for almost anyone to seriously consider.
You shouldn't climb at all then. People die just scrambling too. Even hiking can be dangerous.
Do you wear a helmet when you drive a car? That might actually be sensible. It's probably just too 'weird' for almost anyone to seriously consider.
I would also highly recommend The Dawn Wall: https://www.dawnwall-film.com/. I watched it and Free Solo at around the same time, and The Dawn Wall is a much better movie in my mind
* As a climber this hurt me a bit to read. They're not boots, they're shoes John!*
"rock boots" is a perfectly fine name for climbing shoes. I think "climbing boots" is just fine
"rock boots" is a perfectly fine name for climbing shoes. I think "climbing boots" is just fine
Not a native English speaker, and it might depend on the region/scene but I wouldn't agree with you.
This is a rock boot (usually called mountain boot) https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f7/fb/96/f7fb9693adc35876240a... and this is a rock shoe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PRxN-KNqLs#t=127s
This is a rock boot (usually called mountain boot) https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f7/fb/96/f7fb9693adc35876240a... and this is a rock shoe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PRxN-KNqLs#t=127s
Maybe it's regional but I have never heard of climbing shoes referred to as "rock boots", much less "climbing boots".
Often used in England, which you could argue was where the hobby of climbing something other than a mountain gained traction.
They often call them boots in the UK.
Having actually met Honnald several times, I’m pretty hard pressed to call him a daredevil.
Plus Caldwell climbed with a missing finger!
That said, I'm not sure I'd rank one over the other. Both feats are incredibly impressive, albeit for different reasons.
That said, I'm not sure I'd rank one over the other. Both feats are incredibly impressive, albeit for different reasons.
Many people would call them "rock boots" in British English.
Not to detract too much from the author's point... But as a climber myself, I think climbing technology does actually contribute to advances in pure climbing skill more than you might think.
Take just a single aspect of the gear - climbing rope, modern rope is a technological wonder, light, super strong and extremely dynamic, it's part of what makes it possible to push yourself to the limit and repeatedly fall off routes safely, with zero injury. After a certain point you cannot improve in climbing without pushing beyond your limits and failing, modern technology allows you to push further and further and survive and retain your skills, and this is a significant part of why the pure climbing skill of climbers today is so advanced.
The author has made the same observation but ignoring climbing technology and focusing on internet etc for spread of knowledge - but there are many skills that do not survive conceptualization and communication in tact, for those, you need specialist technology to advance your learning beyond the basics.
Go back 80 years, you will find weak, heavy hemp rope, rope harnesses that will probably kill you, and people literally carried rocks as gear, shoving them in cracks with the rope behind them. It's not hard to see how limiting this is in learning the skill, as you move forward in time gear becomes more advanced but still very heavy.
Take just a single aspect of the gear - climbing rope, modern rope is a technological wonder, light, super strong and extremely dynamic, it's part of what makes it possible to push yourself to the limit and repeatedly fall off routes safely, with zero injury. After a certain point you cannot improve in climbing without pushing beyond your limits and failing, modern technology allows you to push further and further and survive and retain your skills, and this is a significant part of why the pure climbing skill of climbers today is so advanced.
The author has made the same observation but ignoring climbing technology and focusing on internet etc for spread of knowledge - but there are many skills that do not survive conceptualization and communication in tact, for those, you need specialist technology to advance your learning beyond the basics.
Go back 80 years, you will find weak, heavy hemp rope, rope harnesses that will probably kill you, and people literally carried rocks as gear, shoving them in cracks with the rope behind them. It's not hard to see how limiting this is in learning the skill, as you move forward in time gear becomes more advanced but still very heavy.
I agree that more modern climbing gear is fantastic and definitely gives me a great deal of confidence when I am pushing my limits, I don't think that it would stop me from pushing at all.
Even using gear from 30-40 years ago, it is possible to climb with relative safety, the new gear is mainly only an incremental improvement in safety.
That's not to say that I would happily take a fall on older equipment, just that the main element of danger is generally not the equipment but the surrounding environment.
Even using gear from 30-40 years ago, it is possible to climb with relative safety, the new gear is mainly only an incremental improvement in safety.
That's not to say that I would happily take a fall on older equipment, just that the main element of danger is generally not the equipment but the surrounding environment.
Really? You'd be comfortable whipping in a swiss seat tied to a hemp rope (not dynamic) and stopped by a body belay? I don't think so. A clean fall onto a static rope can kill you from the sudden stop alone. There is a reason the mantra used to be "the leader must not fall" and its not because those guys were just scared.
Sure 30 to 40 years ago (1980-1990) the equipment was good, and thats about when the explosion in free climbing ability really got going. The first 5.13 (Alex's Free Solo route Freerider has a 13a pitch) was done in 77 and the first 5.14 in 85. [1] Not coincidentally, the modern cam came into use in the late 70s. [2] Good climbing shoes came in the 80s too. Sport climbing, the use of bolts (technology) to safely climb faces that weren't previously protectable also started in the early 80s. So of course you wouldn't mind climbing on 30-40 year old climbing technology.
Normal gear has been pretty stable since then and the limits of the sport have continued to grow, but that doesnt mean its not because of technology. The boom we are in now has been due to another bit of technology, the indoor climbing gym. They started in earnest in the 90s and have allowed a new level of training.
[1] https://web.stanford.edu/~clint/yos/hard.htm
[2] https://www.climbing.com/news/10-things-you-didnt-know-about...
Sure 30 to 40 years ago (1980-1990) the equipment was good, and thats about when the explosion in free climbing ability really got going. The first 5.13 (Alex's Free Solo route Freerider has a 13a pitch) was done in 77 and the first 5.14 in 85. [1] Not coincidentally, the modern cam came into use in the late 70s. [2] Good climbing shoes came in the 80s too. Sport climbing, the use of bolts (technology) to safely climb faces that weren't previously protectable also started in the early 80s. So of course you wouldn't mind climbing on 30-40 year old climbing technology.
Normal gear has been pretty stable since then and the limits of the sport have continued to grow, but that doesnt mean its not because of technology. The boom we are in now has been due to another bit of technology, the indoor climbing gym. They started in earnest in the 90s and have allowed a new level of training.
[1] https://web.stanford.edu/~clint/yos/hard.htm
[2] https://www.climbing.com/news/10-things-you-didnt-know-about...
what type of whippers are you taking? if you are setting your protection closely enough and your belayer is not leaving lots of slack, you shouldn't be falling far enough on a static rope to kill you.
I'm not taking any whips at all on static rope. That's just dumb.
But I guess you mean what kind of falls am I taking on dynamic rope that I wouldn't want to take on static rope? Its not about distance, its about fall factor [1]. Fall factor 2 falls are possible on multi pitch routes. Doing that on a static rope would really screw you up even if it didn't kill you. It could also easily shock load your anchor gear enough to break or pull it out, killing you and your belayer.
[1] https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/skills/fall_factors_expl...
But I guess you mean what kind of falls am I taking on dynamic rope that I wouldn't want to take on static rope? Its not about distance, its about fall factor [1]. Fall factor 2 falls are possible on multi pitch routes. Doing that on a static rope would really screw you up even if it didn't kill you. It could also easily shock load your anchor gear enough to break or pull it out, killing you and your belayer.
[1] https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/skills/fall_factors_expl...
But getting to the point where you can ascend El Cap in 4 hours requires modern gear. In Free Solo, most of the documentary focuses on his progress over years practicing the route.
Getting to a specific point on the face of El Cap used to be a weeks-long endeavor in itself, pushing everyone to their physical and technological limits. The fact that he was able to go for day-trips to any point on the wall to practice is a testament to all the technology involved.
He used modern ropes, hauling gear, etc, to essentially turn the route into a gym that he could practice on. He used modern climbing holds to re-create the dyno problem so he could practice at home. He literally memorized the entire sequence of moves.
It would be impossible to learn a route to the level that it requires to ascend it in 4 hours without modern technology. Imagine if practicing the dyno problem required having to fund and set up a 47 day expedition to reach it.
Getting to a specific point on the face of El Cap used to be a weeks-long endeavor in itself, pushing everyone to their physical and technological limits. The fact that he was able to go for day-trips to any point on the wall to practice is a testament to all the technology involved.
He used modern ropes, hauling gear, etc, to essentially turn the route into a gym that he could practice on. He used modern climbing holds to re-create the dyno problem so he could practice at home. He literally memorized the entire sequence of moves.
It would be impossible to learn a route to the level that it requires to ascend it in 4 hours without modern technology. Imagine if practicing the dyno problem required having to fund and set up a 47 day expedition to reach it.
That's simply untrue. Climbing technology is fundamentally unchanged from the early '80s. Since then it's been a process of refinement, with the big exception of shoe technology. I acknowledge that TC Pros are tremendous shoes compared to eg '80s-era Fires.
Untrue of the parent comment perhaps, but the article is talking about going back two centuries.
Regardless, the 80s was the inception of most modern climbing gear sure; but the intermediate years were not only refinements but improvements through the culture assimilating that gear to the point of maximum utility - much the same could be said about personal computing, although the technological advances are larger, much of the advances are cultural, learning how to best utilise it.
Regardless, the 80s was the inception of most modern climbing gear sure; but the intermediate years were not only refinements but improvements through the culture assimilating that gear to the point of maximum utility - much the same could be said about personal computing, although the technological advances are larger, much of the advances are cultural, learning how to best utilise it.
Tommy Caldwell recreated the dyno on the Dawn Wall with plastic holds. Alex Honnold didn't practice the boulder problem on Freerider on the ground to my knowledge, he set it at a gym later for fun though.
Are the plastic holds themselves an example of the technology we're thinking about here?
The gym is, itself, a technology that has pushed the envelope on climbing. When I was learning in the 90s there was no gym where I was and if I wanted to practice I had to climb buildings. It's much easier now to find good places to work out climbing technique without traveling to the cliff.
The gym is, itself, a technology that has pushed the envelope on climbing. When I was learning in the 90s there was no gym where I was and if I wanted to practice I had to climb buildings. It's much easier now to find good places to work out climbing technique without traveling to the cliff.
> Even using gear from 30-40 years ago, it is possible to climb with relative safety, the new gear is mainly only an incremental improvement in safety.
Yes, but isn't that also roughly when modern sport climbing started?
Nylon ropes for climbing were introduced about 55y ago, though, I don't know when they became wide spread. Same for modern harness, modern bolts and quick draws. So your ~40y ago might be roughly correct.
Modern sport climbing started, I would argue, around that time. For instance, Red Pointing was popularized in the 70ties [2].
Also interesting is, that Phoenix, the first 7c+, the grade of the route in the Free Solo movie, was climbed in 1977 [3,4] and first free soloed in 2011 (also by Honold).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernmantle_rope [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redpoint_(climbing) [3] https://www.emontana.cz/climbing-milestones-from-6a-to-9c/
Yes, but isn't that also roughly when modern sport climbing started?
Nylon ropes for climbing were introduced about 55y ago, though, I don't know when they became wide spread. Same for modern harness, modern bolts and quick draws. So your ~40y ago might be roughly correct.
Modern sport climbing started, I would argue, around that time. For instance, Red Pointing was popularized in the 70ties [2].
Also interesting is, that Phoenix, the first 7c+, the grade of the route in the Free Solo movie, was climbed in 1977 [3,4] and first free soloed in 2011 (also by Honold).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernmantle_rope [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redpoint_(climbing) [3] https://www.emontana.cz/climbing-milestones-from-6a-to-9c/
Not just nylon ropes, but multi-fall ropes: in the early 70's, we didn't trust a rope after it had taken a hard fall. You can't learn a big-wall route if you have to retire your rope after every long fall.
When Yosemite Mountaineering School classes went out to the rock they used nylon ropes, in 1975. I was never more than a student of climbing but everything that has been mentioned in this thread was being done, and written up in books you could buy at Kelty, in the mid 70's. Dawn Wall was climbed with 300 bolts on its first ascent (but bolt usage was ahead of its time). The 'harness' is the main refinement I would say was lacking. YMS classes were taught to put on, and the books described, the swami belt (not unknown today, but not preferred?) made on demand from webbing. Cams were advertised but chocks/nuts were the standard.
I saw Jeff Lowe a couple years ago and someone from the audience asked him what technology he's seen that has most revolutionized climbing- he said headlamps: The small, light, LED headlights that last 50+ hours.
I feel like you've selected a very convenient mile marker. Right after nylon ropes & cams entered widespread usage.
Using gear from, say, 45 years ago you would have mainly hexes, tricams, and nuts. Would you climb as hard then?
Using gear from, say, 45 years ago you would have mainly hexes, tricams, and nuts. Would you climb as hard then?
[deleted]
I disagree, in some ways it does make a big difference in pushing grades. It is much easier to plug a cam in then pound a piton when you're free climbing. To me it seems very few hard off widths would be climbed if your pro was a bong or chockstone you place. People do trad 5.11s now and think no big deal but the routes were often runout and bold leads back in the day.
You should detract from the author's point, because it only works if you are largely ignorant of how things like this actually happens. It is essentially always not generics, but specifics. Specific people doing specific things in specific places with specific technology and culture. Without knowing much of the "extreme climbing community" I would bet that it is a rather specific group of people and largely non-existent outside of that.
The author is largely trying to sell exceptionalism. That everything will be fine with generic improvements. Yet, of course that isn't true. Both state of technology and the economy is probably better than ever yet deliver less and less value. Chances are people like Alex Honnold did it despite of the policies of this economist.
> And now, the technology of the internet. Each new idea in rock climbing is accessible quickly all over the world. Without that large group of interested people, this communal knowledge would not have advanced so far. [The Article]
> After a year, he dropped out of Berkeley and spent time living at home and driving around California to go climbing. "I'd wound up with my mom's old minivan, and that was my base," he said. "I'd use it to drive to Joshua Tree to climb or I'd drive to LA to see my girlfriend. My orbit was tiny and really cheap. I destroyed that van fairly quickly; it died on me one day, and for the next year I lived just on my bicycle and in a tent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Honnold
The author is largely trying to sell exceptionalism. That everything will be fine with generic improvements. Yet, of course that isn't true. Both state of technology and the economy is probably better than ever yet deliver less and less value. Chances are people like Alex Honnold did it despite of the policies of this economist.
> And now, the technology of the internet. Each new idea in rock climbing is accessible quickly all over the world. Without that large group of interested people, this communal knowledge would not have advanced so far. [The Article]
> After a year, he dropped out of Berkeley and spent time living at home and driving around California to go climbing. "I'd wound up with my mom's old minivan, and that was my base," he said. "I'd use it to drive to Joshua Tree to climb or I'd drive to LA to see my girlfriend. My orbit was tiny and really cheap. I destroyed that van fairly quickly; it died on me one day, and for the next year I lived just on my bicycle and in a tent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Honnold
> The author is largely trying to sell exceptionalism. That everything will be fine with generic improvements. [...] Specific people doing specific things in specific places with specific technology and culture.
On second thought I think you are correct, it should detract. And it's important my example only be seen within the context of the entire climbing culture, not as an alternative to the authors causal choice. Many things, individual pieces of technology, social environment and cultural inertia have brought the culture to where it is today - it cannot be attributed to any single thing or event.
I think there is something about human psychology that makes people commonly gravitate towards this type of thinking, like in a myth or fairytale... some sensitive dependence, a key event that changed it all! or a single piece of technology to change it all etc etc. It makes for exciting stories and makes it easy to explain things (wrongly), but it's rarely the truth.
On second thought I think you are correct, it should detract. And it's important my example only be seen within the context of the entire climbing culture, not as an alternative to the authors causal choice. Many things, individual pieces of technology, social environment and cultural inertia have brought the culture to where it is today - it cannot be attributed to any single thing or event.
I think there is something about human psychology that makes people commonly gravitate towards this type of thinking, like in a myth or fairytale... some sensitive dependence, a key event that changed it all! or a single piece of technology to change it all etc etc. It makes for exciting stories and makes it easy to explain things (wrongly), but it's rarely the truth.
> I think there is something about human psychology that makes people commonly gravitate towards this type of thinking
Chronology and narrative are definitely natural ways that humans frame the world - one of the many instinctive faults in our cognition. Such a simple view of the “infinite now” is easily hijacked in marketing, politics, etc.
Chronology and narrative are definitely natural ways that humans frame the world - one of the many instinctive faults in our cognition. Such a simple view of the “infinite now” is easily hijacked in marketing, politics, etc.
There are obviously both factors at work though. Exceptionalism does happen, and it is not purely driven by technology. Outside of climbing, take guitar as an example. The amount of excellent players out there on youtube is amazing. Certainly music and the instruments have been available and mass marketed since the 70s at least, but guitars haven't gotten easier to play. Now though, there are a lot of players that have grown up now watching how others play. Not just figuring it out by ear but seeing videos of great players and studying them. It's never been easier to observe great musicians, and so you see plenty of instrumentalists that have progressed very far, building on the shoulders of those who figured those techniques out and wrote those songs.
I don't think the author intended the piece to be "an explanation" so much as an observation. I think that is fine, and there isn't much point in generalizing this observation a human tendency towards sloppy thinking.
I don't think the author intended the piece to be "an explanation" so much as an observation. I think that is fine, and there isn't much point in generalizing this observation a human tendency towards sloppy thinking.
I just don't think the authors observation is very good. He is essentially saying that "a rising tide lifts all boats". But in reality it is the boats that are important more so than the tide.
The invention of the sampler created a huge amount of value. But mainly by a handful of companies and music scenes. If you wasn't for Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, London, Bristol or wherever else the change would have been marginal. Just like climbing wouldn't necessarily improve without places like Yosemite.
You can even go further and say that it isn't just specific groups that make progress, but that they define progress itself. There isn't much as such saying that free soloing in Yosemite is what progress is. Or even that climbing is worth progressing.
There also can't be many who believe that technology haven't made e.g. trains significantly better in past decades. Yet, China now have much more advanced trains than the US which is arguably better at technology. That is presumably because China is building boats rather than praising the tide.
The invention of the sampler created a huge amount of value. But mainly by a handful of companies and music scenes. If you wasn't for Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, London, Bristol or wherever else the change would have been marginal. Just like climbing wouldn't necessarily improve without places like Yosemite.
You can even go further and say that it isn't just specific groups that make progress, but that they define progress itself. There isn't much as such saying that free soloing in Yosemite is what progress is. Or even that climbing is worth progressing.
There also can't be many who believe that technology haven't made e.g. trains significantly better in past decades. Yet, China now have much more advanced trains than the US which is arguably better at technology. That is presumably because China is building boats rather than praising the tide.
Alex didn't use any rope going up El Cap so...
True, but he did use a rope to rehearse the route a large number of times. He knew he was physically capable of free soloing the route because of the confidence he was able to gain as a direct result of using the technology available to him.
I don't think you read all of my post... i'm not talking about the direct affect of technology use on any single assent.
Only if Alex has never used a modern climbing rope in his life is my point invalid (I know he has). It's also important to understand that many of other pieces of climbing technology help in learning and developing the skill for everyone, not a single one, ropes are just an example.
Only if Alex has never used a modern climbing rope in his life is my point invalid (I know he has). It's also important to understand that many of other pieces of climbing technology help in learning and developing the skill for everyone, not a single one, ropes are just an example.
The vast majority of Alex's climbing is trad. So he benefited from thousands of pitches with modern safety equipment: harnesses, lightweight cams, ropes, crash pads (when he was training in Bishop) and so on. Free Solo was his magnum opus, the result of all that training.
That's like saying maps don't matter in warfare because they aren't useful in hand to hand combat
He did though, just not on his final ascent.
Hmm, weird article - I wish the author knew more about climbing, as they are getting it a bit wrong.
Alex couldn't have been birthed 100 years ago and climbed El Cap. The route he used still needed to be established by others. Alex climbed that already-established routes dozens of times before committing to not use all the tech the author thinks he doesn't need. The rehearsal was key. If there's a takeaway from him, it's: "practice".
The route also had to be modified to allow anyone to climb it free - I'm talking about modifying the rock itself. 100 years ago, the climb would have been different. Not hugely so, but one key handhold present that was there before could have made all the difference.
The happened in the first free ascent of the Nose too - an entire pitch was chipped in an attempt to free it, by a different person. They failed, but the route, once chipped, cannot be healed.
Alex couldn't have been birthed 100 years ago and climbed El Cap. The route he used still needed to be established by others. Alex climbed that already-established routes dozens of times before committing to not use all the tech the author thinks he doesn't need. The rehearsal was key. If there's a takeaway from him, it's: "practice".
The route also had to be modified to allow anyone to climb it free - I'm talking about modifying the rock itself. 100 years ago, the climb would have been different. Not hugely so, but one key handhold present that was there before could have made all the difference.
The happened in the first free ascent of the Nose too - an entire pitch was chipped in an attempt to free it, by a different person. They failed, but the route, once chipped, cannot be healed.
Fun bit of trivia on this topic:
Alex was the first person to climb El Cap with no protection.
The first person to climb The Nose route without using the gear for aid, was a woman, Lynn Hill.
So El Cap went from a weeks long project using anything they had for aid, to climbed with rope used only for protection by a woman, in a day, and now to Alex climbing El Cap (via an easier route than Hill) with no protection at all.
The first two people to free El Cap were Todd Skinner and Paul Piana. The climbed the Salathe Wall in 1988. In 1993 or so Lynn Hill free climbed the Nose.
So El Cap went from a weeks long project using anything they had for aid
Alex has also climbed that same route, in a comparable style, in under two hours.
Alex has also climbed that same route, in a comparable style, in under two hours.
Anything goes for speed ascents of The Nose, so long as you do it fast. There are aid sections, it's not entirely free.
Alex Honnold has not freed the nose with or without a rope. His nose speed record partner, Tommy Caldwell, is one of only a handful of people who have.
Lynn Hill's first free ascent of The Nose was a monumental achievement, for a woman or a man.
It's confusing because The Nose describes both the feature on El Cap, and the route that takes the plum line up that feature. Honnold's Free Solo of the Nose was on a route called Freerider.
Alex Honnold has not freed the nose with or without a rope. His nose speed record partner, Tommy Caldwell, is one of only a handful of people who have.
Lynn Hill's first free ascent of The Nose was a monumental achievement, for a woman or a man.
It's confusing because The Nose describes both the feature on El Cap, and the route that takes the plum line up that feature. Honnold's Free Solo of the Nose was on a route called Freerider.
Alex Honnold has not freed the nose with or without a rope
That's why I said, "in a comparable style". The FA was done on aid, as was Alex's speed ascent with Tommy.
But not completely comparable. The FA had to establish anchors, drill in bolts, figure out the route. More standing on the shoulders of giants, than anything I think.
Then, it's just optimization.
Honnold's Free Solo of the Nose was on a route called Freerider.
I think the confusion may be your own? The Nose is well, The Nose. Honnold climbed a route off to the side on a feature called (initially) the Salathe Wall.
That's why I said, "in a comparable style". The FA was done on aid, as was Alex's speed ascent with Tommy.
But not completely comparable. The FA had to establish anchors, drill in bolts, figure out the route. More standing on the shoulders of giants, than anything I think.
Then, it's just optimization.
Honnold's Free Solo of the Nose was on a route called Freerider.
I think the confusion may be your own? The Nose is well, The Nose. Honnold climbed a route off to the side on a feature called (initially) the Salathe Wall.
I concede, I was confused.
Regarding economic growth and growth theories, I found Dr. Paul Romer's (2018 Economics winner) Nobel Prize Lecture on his work, economic growth theories, and hope for the future to be excellent and stimulating.
> Paul M. Romer: Lecture in Economic Sciences 2018 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZmgZGIZtiM
> Nobel Page: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/rom...
> Paul M. Romer: Lecture in Economic Sciences 2018 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZmgZGIZtiM
> Nobel Page: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/rom...
In the video the economist talks about progress just as if progress is the end in itself, but is not. We need to have a goal in order to progress to that goal. To have infinite progress is the same to say that at least one of this things:
We don’t know where we want to go; We are infinitely greed; We are infinitely incompetent;
We can use the example of the rope. There was many technological progress in the last decades to manufacture good gear for climbing, but as time goes by we will need to spend much more resources in research to get less and less improvements on the rope. There will be a time were the climber needs are fulfilled and we could just spare the nature (ex: the mountains that they like to climb) and enjoy what we have accomplished.
We don’t know where we want to go; We are infinitely greed; We are infinitely incompetent;
We can use the example of the rope. There was many technological progress in the last decades to manufacture good gear for climbing, but as time goes by we will need to spend much more resources in research to get less and less improvements on the rope. There will be a time were the climber needs are fulfilled and we could just spare the nature (ex: the mountains that they like to climb) and enjoy what we have accomplished.
I watched and really enjoyed this movie. Essentially for both of these reasons.
1. The psychology of fear and how we can learn to overcome fear. I think there is a lot to say about the tantalising experience of facing death.
2. The evolutionary nature of a discipline. Some disciplines improve with technology, others with knowledge.
I really love technical sports and am inspired by the amount of sharing in the communities. It is also easy to see in the newer sports how much progress has been made.
It's exciting seeing how far we can push ourselves through what we previously thought was difficult/impossible and redefine the frontiers of the sport
1. The psychology of fear and how we can learn to overcome fear. I think there is a lot to say about the tantalising experience of facing death.
2. The evolutionary nature of a discipline. Some disciplines improve with technology, others with knowledge.
I really love technical sports and am inspired by the amount of sharing in the communities. It is also easy to see in the newer sports how much progress has been made.
It's exciting seeing how far we can push ourselves through what we previously thought was difficult/impossible and redefine the frontiers of the sport
If you have seen and enjoyed Free Solo, I can also recommend the Reel Rock series & Meru.
If you haven't seen Free Solo (because you're not interested in climbing, or whatever) it's still worth a watch.
https://www.redbull.com/int-en/tv/show/AP-1MD65N6X92111/reel...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2545428/
If you haven't seen Free Solo (because you're not interested in climbing, or whatever) it's still worth a watch.
https://www.redbull.com/int-en/tv/show/AP-1MD65N6X92111/reel...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2545428/
There's a couple the things the author missed - not that it changes the conclusion that much, but adds more context.
The first is how the rise in indoor rock gyms in turn gave rise to youth leagues and competition. This has created a huge leap forward in the skills of elite climbers because many today (the "gym rat" generation) have been climbing only slightly less longer than they've been walking.
The second is how the funding of outdoor adventure/exploration has evolved through the last couple of centuries, from securing precious resources (though mountaineering never had much of that), to a sort of angel/philanthropic model (geographic societies and alpine clubs), to government backed nationalism, to the current gear branding and sponsorship that is fueled by social media. This current model drives a huge amount of activity in outdoor endeavors that have helped create the crowd sourced effect he's talking about.
The first is how the rise in indoor rock gyms in turn gave rise to youth leagues and competition. This has created a huge leap forward in the skills of elite climbers because many today (the "gym rat" generation) have been climbing only slightly less longer than they've been walking.
The second is how the funding of outdoor adventure/exploration has evolved through the last couple of centuries, from securing precious resources (though mountaineering never had much of that), to a sort of angel/philanthropic model (geographic societies and alpine clubs), to government backed nationalism, to the current gear branding and sponsorship that is fueled by social media. This current model drives a huge amount of activity in outdoor endeavors that have helped create the crowd sourced effect he's talking about.
This analysis is great, but I think there's a highly underrated economic point to be made; technology has unlocked crucial business innovations for climbing. 50 years ago, if you are into climbing, others might hear about it in a specialized tv show or magazine. You also needed to be very rich to be able to afford the time and equipment costs of climbing.
Now with social media driven by the internet, the sponsorship model has enabled people with a passion to be able to sustain a living pursuing that hobby. Independent of the knowledge transfer, deeper knowledge is being created from more people being able to devote their lives to the hobby.
Here's an article about FreeSolo's earnings from sponsorship: https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-us/magazine/money-diary-alex...
Now with social media driven by the internet, the sponsorship model has enabled people with a passion to be able to sustain a living pursuing that hobby. Independent of the knowledge transfer, deeper knowledge is being created from more people being able to devote their lives to the hobby.
Here's an article about FreeSolo's earnings from sponsorship: https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-us/magazine/money-diary-alex...
> I think that in studying economic growth, we (and especially we in the Silicon Valley) focus way too much on gadgets, and too little on the simple fact of human knowledge of how to do things.
This is a major component of software's power – it's a tool for formalizing knowledge and skills permanently and distributing it rapidly at ~0 marginal cost. If a piece of software is both correct and performant, it can last a very, very long time, possibly outliving its creators. And the best software composes, so one program can build on top of another to build up a massive skillset.
This is a major component of software's power – it's a tool for formalizing knowledge and skills permanently and distributing it rapidly at ~0 marginal cost. If a piece of software is both correct and performant, it can last a very, very long time, possibly outliving its creators. And the best software composes, so one program can build on top of another to build up a massive skillset.
This is a very interesting look at climbing as it relates to knowledge transmission.
Prior to YouTube, learning proper form really required you to probably take lessons and live/breath/be super friendly with some really good climbers as a necessity. Now, you can watch a number of good climbers online on having proper technique to get 70% there.
For example this video demonstrates how climbing crimps (a specific type of hold) requires more than just finger strength: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws06PjI4FTU
Stuff like this was nearly impossible to convey by book. If you want to learn how to be a better swimmer for example because you didn't take up swimming until you were in your 20s, it was very difficult. I did this as an adult, and each private lesson with an instructor to improve my form was $100 in recession dollars. Now, you can gather so much online and iron out the wrinkles with live instruction.
Disclaimer: the video linked above is my friend's YouTube channel.
Prior to YouTube, learning proper form really required you to probably take lessons and live/breath/be super friendly with some really good climbers as a necessity. Now, you can watch a number of good climbers online on having proper technique to get 70% there.
For example this video demonstrates how climbing crimps (a specific type of hold) requires more than just finger strength: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws06PjI4FTU
Stuff like this was nearly impossible to convey by book. If you want to learn how to be a better swimmer for example because you didn't take up swimming until you were in your 20s, it was very difficult. I did this as an adult, and each private lesson with an instructor to improve my form was $100 in recession dollars. Now, you can gather so much online and iron out the wrinkles with live instruction.
Disclaimer: the video linked above is my friend's YouTube channel.
I might be biased since I learned to climb before YouTube, but I find it quite difficult to learn or teach others through coaching or watching. Although I don't think that holds for the basics, if someone doesn't know what a drop knee is then a video of one would be helpful.
But past that, so much depends on subtle weight shifts and tailoring moves to ones specific body; it's hard to learn that stuff outside of just trying hard moves yourself and making small adjustments.
But past that, so much depends on subtle weight shifts and tailoring moves to ones specific body; it's hard to learn that stuff outside of just trying hard moves yourself and making small adjustments.
John Cochrane is not the first person to think of the economy as the transfer, flow and storage of knowledge.
See this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Information-Grows-Evolution-Econo...
The author of this book not only thinks about the economy in terms of knowledge but he relates it to information theory and entropy.
See this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Information-Grows-Evolution-Econo...
The author of this book not only thinks about the economy in terms of knowledge but he relates it to information theory and entropy.
I would have named this article, “Free Solo Market Cap”.
Also disappointing read. What about comparing climbers to day traders or investors that take economic risks that often have very real consequences in other people’s lives.
Also disappointing read. What about comparing climbers to day traders or investors that take economic risks that often have very real consequences in other people’s lives.
[deleted]
The author's point about dissemination of information is spot-on.
A couple of years ago, I read Medieval Technology and Social Change, by Lynn White (https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Technology-Social-Change-Whi...) as recommended by PG. Technically a textbook, it was a dry and drab look at the history of various innovations during Midlevel times - the stirrup, the windmill, etc. The 30,000ft view is that when innovations are introduced it takes a long time both for them to spread and for someone to finally exploit them to their greatest contributive state. While the steam engine was not invented until 1712, all of the components had been available since Roman times. It took quite a long time to find one of the greatest uses of those innovations. At least, it used to take a long time -
Now, information and innovation spread much faster. Society moves much faster. The innovation of the stirrup took a thousands years to propagate. The innovation of the internet took less than 50 years; Smartphones took 5. The pace of global change is increasing exponentially. A modern entrepreneur must have line of sight to the latest innovations in order to anticipate their impact on his or her society, industry, business, and personal well being. No one wanted to be the new Nokia, Borders Books, or Woolworths.
But, let's take a step back from specific innovations, and look at global mega-shifts in society. From the agricultural revolution, to the various metal ages, through the industrial revolution we are now being lapped by the waves of the Information Age.
As humans we quickly absorb each individual change brought forth in the information age - email, cellular connections, the world wide web, the smart phone, etc. Can you imagine running your business without your iPhone? We very quickly adapt to the here and now and forget the way it was (Thank you evolution!). However, what we are not good at perceiving is the systematic, second-order changes that the Information Age will bring. The Agricultural Age brought these changes over thousands of years. The Industrial Age brought them over generations. The Information Age will bring them with alarming speed that we may not be prepared for:
* Retailer's monopoly on local distribution was destroyed by Amazon.com + UPS
* Newspapers have been shattered by the internet's ability to breakdown their stranglehold on the distribution of information.
* The telecom world was turned upside down by the introduction of the cell phones, the internet, and the disruption of their monopoly on land-lines (Note that AT&T is a mere brand name, which was purchased on the cheap by SBC).
* The traditional media world felt this shock earlier this year when a man with a twitter account was able to upend their distribution monopoly on the news and they were left reacting and pandering instead of dictating.
But these are a number of examples in the commercial world. What about society itself? What about the global financial systems? What about governments?
Note: this was part of a letter I sent out with a Christmas gift a few years ago. Full letter here: https://blog.jacob.vi/the-sovereign-individual/
A couple of years ago, I read Medieval Technology and Social Change, by Lynn White (https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Technology-Social-Change-Whi...) as recommended by PG. Technically a textbook, it was a dry and drab look at the history of various innovations during Midlevel times - the stirrup, the windmill, etc. The 30,000ft view is that when innovations are introduced it takes a long time both for them to spread and for someone to finally exploit them to their greatest contributive state. While the steam engine was not invented until 1712, all of the components had been available since Roman times. It took quite a long time to find one of the greatest uses of those innovations. At least, it used to take a long time -
Now, information and innovation spread much faster. Society moves much faster. The innovation of the stirrup took a thousands years to propagate. The innovation of the internet took less than 50 years; Smartphones took 5. The pace of global change is increasing exponentially. A modern entrepreneur must have line of sight to the latest innovations in order to anticipate their impact on his or her society, industry, business, and personal well being. No one wanted to be the new Nokia, Borders Books, or Woolworths.
But, let's take a step back from specific innovations, and look at global mega-shifts in society. From the agricultural revolution, to the various metal ages, through the industrial revolution we are now being lapped by the waves of the Information Age.
As humans we quickly absorb each individual change brought forth in the information age - email, cellular connections, the world wide web, the smart phone, etc. Can you imagine running your business without your iPhone? We very quickly adapt to the here and now and forget the way it was (Thank you evolution!). However, what we are not good at perceiving is the systematic, second-order changes that the Information Age will bring. The Agricultural Age brought these changes over thousands of years. The Industrial Age brought them over generations. The Information Age will bring them with alarming speed that we may not be prepared for:
* Retailer's monopoly on local distribution was destroyed by Amazon.com + UPS
* Newspapers have been shattered by the internet's ability to breakdown their stranglehold on the distribution of information.
* The telecom world was turned upside down by the introduction of the cell phones, the internet, and the disruption of their monopoly on land-lines (Note that AT&T is a mere brand name, which was purchased on the cheap by SBC).
* The traditional media world felt this shock earlier this year when a man with a twitter account was able to upend their distribution monopoly on the news and they were left reacting and pandering instead of dictating.
But these are a number of examples in the commercial world. What about society itself? What about the global financial systems? What about governments?
Note: this was part of a letter I sent out with a Christmas gift a few years ago. Full letter here: https://blog.jacob.vi/the-sovereign-individual/
Much of that technology looks old, but isn't: ropes have been around a while, but modern climbing ropes stretch so as to drastically lower the peak forces on your protection. For example. Modern climbing exists in large part because we developed technology that lets you try to climb hard high stuff without dying.
Now, you could also get good just by bouldering, staying close to the ground. But that's not how actual existing climbing developed: bouldering grew out of crag climbing, which grew out of mountaineering. It's a little silly to wonder why people weren't very good at a game we just invented, before we invented it.
Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century British mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan climbers in 1350?