Hi guys, I wrote the part II to the first story I posted 3 weeks ago.
I think moving together is an interesting action. Basically what it means is that you are roped to your partner on perhaps easy but massively exposed terrain. Easy in this sense is usually also very relative to the ability level of the pair. It means that due to a lack of protection between you if one of the pair falls, you both fall. So you have to have ultimate trust in your partners ability. Indeed, just on Sunday I was talking to a mountain guide which told me about a fall on Aiguille du Peigne, while a rope team was moving together.
You often don't see ultimate trust in the modern world invested in to a comrade, perhaps outside actual warfare. This is part of the reason why I think Alpine climbing is basically a substitute of this for the modern man. You go in to dangerous places, to do risky things, you don't bring back cattle or women or anything useful for that matter. But perhaps, you show that you could, if the times were different. You seek the same valor and the status that comes with this. Which is why a lot of climbers look down on people using guides, they see it as stolen valor. The first Englishman, Charles Hudson who went up Mont Blanc wrote a book in 1856 titled 'Where There's a Will There's a Way: An Ascent of Mont Blanc by a New Route and Without Guides' which was the first written articulation of this sentiment.
I think the psychology of this sort of adventure seeking has much more to explore. But I haven't yet delved in to it too much yet.
I am not sure if its appropriate for The Motte main page, given the general topic of discussion. But I thought I'd share this anyway given that I think the story series might interest at least some of you here. As some of you may now I had kidney failure and then was subsequently on dialysis, then a transplant, now I am trying to come up with a solution to never be on dialysis again.
This particular chapter of this personal story covers the time period just before my kidneys failed. Its set in the high Alps, which adds a bit of something different.
I wrote this substack post due to my growing frustration with European innovation landscape compared to the US. We seem to follow technological development with at-least about a decade gap. Particularly when it comes to medical research, but others also. That is, if activist groups and political lobbying even allows it to be developed (see chatgpt being banned in Italy).
There is also regulatory burden when it comes to research. In the past year only, it has become exceedingly difficult to do any animal experiments in the Netherlands. This makes sense given the aim of completely 'phasing out' animal research by 2025 . I really hope the new minister of agriculture (Femke Wiersma), from the farmers party, can put a stop to this. I do not understand how supposedly intelligent people believe that animal research can be 'phased out'. Indeed, it is very easy to challenge them on this and receive no satisfying reply. This to me makes it seem more like 'feels over reals' sort of thing. I think a part of the regulatory burden is in part to ensure that the science aligns with ideology, which is perhaps why some places in the US are possibly worse than others.
I am not sure how much this explains. Of course with animal research its easy to say that it explains all of it. But things like GDPR and the research ethics stuff (for human research) seem more influenced by safetyism and ass-covering to me. Here, caution and risk avoidance have become virtues, which makes sense given the median age. I always remember back to the AstraZeneca debacle. Some very very small increase in chance of clots for a certain age group and if you were in this age group you could not get the vaccine full-stop. No matter if the statistics showed that things were actually on the net, positive, or whether you were tired of living under abject tyranny and saw this as a way out. You, as an adult could not make a decision regarding your own well being. Faceless bureaucracy did this for you. Likewise, currently when running any human experiment, it doesn't matter if you want to very much participate in an experiment.
If you have 3 kidneys and the MRI can see this, people can identify you and so this is personally identifiable information and therefore your 'informed consent' means nothing. I see 'consent' as a legacy of classical liberalism. We are paying lip service to it. But actually the consent of the paper pusher, is much more important here than that of the individual.
I really think the current trajectory is ruinous. As I finished off in my post, there are very real consequences to being left behind on the technology game.