Continue to the next page >>

As a species, we are tremendously successful. And that very success becomes incorporated into the models that shape our behavior. I always have enough to eat and drink. I always have adequate shelter. I don't even think about predators. All advantage flows to me effortlessly. The natural conclusion I unconsciously draw is that I'm doing something right. My strongest models tell me to keep doing what I've been doing.

Man was once a wary creature, venturing onto the plain with his head down and his ears up. The world must have seemed calculated to bedevil him, to snatch from his grasp all that he held dear, and to distribute his bones to the beasts just for spite. It must've seemed the height of good sense to create a world where the fruit always hung low and all predators were kept at bay. But that benevolent world comes with unintended consequences: It teaches us to drop our guard.

In 1999 there was a bad accident in Sacred Falls State Park on the island of Oahu. Eight sightseers were killed and dozens were injured by falling rock. Some of the survivors and the relatives of the dead sued the state and received $8.5 million. The state of Hawaii closed the park. To our modern way of thinking, closing the park might seem an obvious response. After all, people were killed there. But the fact that it seems to make good sense is revealing. Closing the park suggests that someone else is responsible for our well-being. It sends the message that we don't have enough sense to avoid falling rocks or to bear the risk if we put ourselves in their way. We show that we agree with that assessment by suing. These attitudes carry with them a pernicious underlying assumption: Our world not only can be made safe but should be. Dan Quinn, director of state parks in Hawaii, said as much: "If and when it's reopened, it will be a more controlled, rigidly managed area."

This type of thinking has become pervasive. Last December, three climbers were overtaken by a blizzard on Mount Hood and died as a result. The Oregon Legislature approved a bill to require climbers to carry emergency locator beacons so that rescuers could find them more easily. As Jim Whittaker, the first American to climb Mount Everest, argues in an op-ed piece in the New York Times, this is a misguided impulse that will discourage people from taking responsibility for themselves. "A climber should begin every expedition assuming that he could be trapped in a blizzard," he writes. "Climbers should be prepared to wait days for a storm to pass." Requiring beacons, he notes, would make "it easier to rely on search-and-rescue personnel, and less on skill and knowledge."

In May, five other climbers started up an intermediate route on Mount Hood. They were carrying a compass, an altimeter, a cell phone, a GPS receiver, maps, and locator beacons. By late morning they had strayed onto an advanced route and weren't sure how to get down. The group activated a locator beacon and called 911, which alerted Portland Mountain Rescue. Steve Rollins, who has been with PMR for more than ten years, urged the group to find its way down the mountain using maps and GPS. "These guys had all the tools they needed to get out of the situation," he recalls. "But beyond that there was just complete laziness." Rollins and his team started up the mountain as night fell. But by the time they arrived, the group was already nearing the Timberline Lodge. "Their attitude was kind of like: Well, it's your job to come get us," Rollins says. (Like everyone else in PMR, Rollins is an unpaid volunteer.)

Taking measures to increase safety suffers from the ratchet effect in the same
way that technology does. It's a one-way process. Once you invent the car, you can't go back to the horse. Once you've established a safeguard, you can only increase it. The point is not that we should make the world less safe. It is that we should be aware of these unintended side effects. In addition, we should be aware that the safety we're being offered is often an illusion. Systems become more complex but not necessarily safer. When radar was introduced
into commercial shipping, it was supposed to reduce accidents. Instead, accidents increased, because the captains drove their boats faster. Something as simple as requiring bicyclists to wear helmets can backfire in surprising ways. Ian Walker, a psychologist at the University of Bath, found that people drive their cars much closer to cyclists wearing helmets, because drivers assume that those people know what they're doing. Rollins doesn't believe requiring
locator beacons will make anyone safer. "It's going to increase the number of rescues and put more search-and-rescue volunteers at risk," he says.

Continue reading on the next page >>

Survival Intro >>

Page 2 - The Darwin of Dumb >>

Page 3 -  When Mental Models Go Wrong >>

Page 4 - The Trouble With Success >>

Page 5 - Learning How to S.T.O.P. >>

Page 6 - Living Mindfully >>

Page 7 - The Survivor: Rulon Gardner >>









Subscribe now and save!