movie "into the wild" - spoiler -

**canid** · 03-28-2011, 11:12 PM

so i can go walk in the freeway, and as long as i try to dodge the cars while i'm at it i'm not engaging in risk taking.

it won't be the activity that kills me, just a semi.

don't get me wrong; i don't think the risks he took where as great as many people have expressed, but my position is that he took those risks. the fact that he died, for one reason or another, of malnutrition in a position - one which he willingly put himself in - and could not escape it is evidence in support of that position. maybe it's my common sense speaking, but since i have trouble understanding how it would be possible for a person to enter that situation deliberately without understanding that dying was a possibility, it is my oppinion that he in fact did know that.

**canid** · 03-28-2011, 11:15 PM

of course; when the result is that you are dead, the severity of your risk taking is academic.

**DOGMAN** · 03-28-2011, 11:22 PM

How about this....what risks did he take?....really analyze your answers- then think about them again, and decide if the actions were risky. Nothing he did was nearly as "risky" as your walking across the Freeeway example. In reality all the guy did was hang-out at a base camp (during spring and summer) for a few months and try to supplement his rations with what he could harvest on his own.

**canid** · 03-28-2011, 11:48 PM

the example was not to illustrate the severity of the risk but your reasoning process.

choosing to trust that 10lb of rice would tide him over until he could plant, tend and harvest crops, or forage and hunt enough food to eat for the duration of his stay was a risk. the severity of this risk in this case is self evident. it was just dangerous enough to have killed him.

crossing a river in good weather which might not be passable later was a risk. this is evident because he was unable to leave when he tried.

trusting that he would not become seriously ill at any point during his relative isolation was a risk.

trusting that he would not be mauled by a bear during this same period was a risk. trusting that he would not be killed or injured by a moos; the same.

these are all risks he took, and which i see no reason to believe he didn't understand. am i pretending they where insane risks? no; but pretending they where not risks is ridiculous. we take risks constantly, and it does not take a genius to recognize many of them. we simply take them anyway, avoiding those which we feel inclined to for whatever process of reasoning we happen to be using.

pretending they aren't risks just because they don't meet whatever arbitrary threshold; well, i suppose it just doesn't make sense to me.

**klkak** · 03-29-2011, 12:02 AM

He was a moron and the world is a better place without him.

**DOGMAN** · 03-29-2011, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by canid

the example was not to illustrate the severity of the risk but your reasoning process.

choosing to trust that 10lb of rice would tide him over until he could plant, tend and harvest crops, or forage and hunt enough food to eat for the duration of his stay was a risk. the severity of this risk in this case is self evident. it was just dangerous enough to have killed him.

crossing a river in good weather which might not be passable later was a risk. this is evident because he was unable to leave when he tried.

trusting that he would not become seriously ill at any point during his relative isolation was a risk.

trusting that he would not be mauled by a bear during this same period was a risk. trusting that he would not be killed or injured by a moos; the same.

these are all risks he took, and which i see no reason to believe he didn't understand. am i pretending they where insane risks? no; but pretending they where not risks is ridiculous. we take risks constantly, and it does not take a genius to recognize many of them. we simply take them anyway, avoiding those which we feel inclined to for whatever process of reasoning we happen to be using.

pretending they aren't risks just because they don't meet whatever arbitrary threshold; well, i suppose it just doesn't make sense to me.

I just agree to disagree...you arent familiar with all the facts (for example- there was a cable crossing less than 1 mile from where he originally crossed the river)...and all the risks you listed arent "unnecessary risks" ....like BASE Jumping, or dodging cars on a freeway....the risks he took, were very basic....essentially just the risks of living out of town (unlike the risks associated with extreme sports) the things you listed didnt kill him...his attitude of "rescue me" was what killed him. He essentially gave up and was waiting to be rescued (as the REAL note on the door indicates, and a few of his final writings as well). When the going got tough...he quit being Alexander Supertramp and reverted back to being Chris McCandless- a suburban kid from a privalaged upbringing waiting on someone or some God to help him....