If you concentrate hard enough, you can feel a distant, cleansing, tingling sensation... that's Darwinian gene pool improvement, which is powered not by death itself but the collective goosebumps of everyone who heard about the mode of expiry actively discouraging such idiocy in the future.
One less foolish person to deal with. It's awful when something like this happens to a child but adults who are wilfully stupid about their own safety often seem equally comfortable inflicting their stupidity on everyone else.
It's one thing to take a calculated risk and die because the gamble didn't pay off or you made some error in your risk calculus. It's quite another to just ignore the clearest possible warnings that something is a Bad Idea That Will Kill You. I don't really feel any sympathy in the latter case.
I assume you think it'd be awful if it happened to a child because even if they knew they were not meant to, they won't be fully understanding of the potential tragedy & suffering it would cause.
Why can't we extend that sympathy to adults who also might not been fully aware of the consequences as well?
Adults that are capable of rudimentary reading are made aware of the consequences. There are signs all over that list the consequences of pissing in the town well, a list which ends in "...or death". We collectively told you to not do $STUPID_THING_THAT_COULD_END_IN_DEATH, and you did it anyway because you think you have a special exemption, and don't give a second thought to trashing the commons. I'm not saying that the punishment should be death, but it doesn't sadden me if that's how it turns out. If they weren't killed by the sulphuric pools, a bison, or a bear, it would have been something else that involves someone holding their beer.
Breaking the rules/doing something a little risky can lead to some of the most magical moments in your life.
Death for someone attempting to seek escape and joy in their life seems like an excessive punishment - mockery isn't necessary.
I feel terrible for what happened in this instance, but there have been a handful of moments in my life where looking back I suppose they could of also ended similarly. Don't regret them in the slightest though - they enriched my entire life.
It was only a few weeks ago people were celebrating Amazon's philosophy of if a mistake is made, it's never the individuals fault it's the systems fault. Could we not also perhaps apply this philosophy to safety notices/warnings/education in this tragedy?
> Breaking the rules/doing something a little risky can lead to some of the most magical moments in your life.
Sure. But part of the reason for that is that those actions are risks.
> seems like an excessive punishment
I didn't see any kind of punishment in the story. I saw a consequence for an action. He didn't die because he broke the rules. He died because he made a fatal mistake by slipping into a hot, acidic pool.
> I feel terrible for what happened in this instance
I feel sorry for the people that he hurt as an indirect result of his actions, but not for the guy himself.
> it's never the individuals fault it's the systems fault. Could we not also perhaps apply this philosophy to safety notices/warnings/education in this tragedy?
I strongly disagree with Amazon's philosophy, in that case. From what I've heard, there are many, many posted warnings, marked trails, and rangers patrolling to educate people. The park's almost 9,000 km^2. At some point, you've got to consider that a best effort was made to provide guidance for safety, and anything that happens as a result of going against that guidance is on whoever did it. He died because he did something stupid, not because the signs/rangers/trails/his 2nd grade teacher didn't stop him.
> It was only a few weeks ago people were celebrating Amazon's philosophy of if a mistake is made, it's never the individuals fault it's the systems fault. Could we not also perhaps apply this philosophy to safety notices/warnings/education in this tragedy?
It has been established in court that the National Parks System is not required to make National Parks safe (families of dead tourists suing for more fences and safety rails and so on) because an intrinsic part of the value of the parks is exposure to nature without a glass wall in front of it. A few people dying horribly is a price the rest of us are willing to pay for that value.
> Breaking the rules/doing something a little risky can lead to some of the most magical moments in your life.
I agree. But some people lack the ability to judge the risk/reward ratio. For those people, we have signs--which unfortunately treats all risky behaviour the same.
> Could we not also perhaps apply this philosophy to safety notices/warnings/education in this tragedy?
There's a whole industry for that. For example, GM/Ford have dashboard cutouts they use for trials against them. They are example dashboards with warnings for every single thing their lawyers could think of. At some point, users just ignore the warnings. Some users never look at any. You can't get everyone to cooperate, accidents are going to happen. The point at which users ignore warnings, or how they respond to them in general are being actively studied.
That's why I made the distinction from people who take calculated risks. Death in this case is not a punishment, it's just a consequence. When someone is surrounded by warnings saying 'don't get killed in this very obvious and irreversible way' and still goes ahead I feel fine about mocking such poor choices, for the same reason I laugh every time Wile E. Coyote runs out of cliff.
I think though if you're going to break rules in a national park, you're best off considering your impact on the environment left behind and the others experiencing it with you.
At some point, you have to expect personal responsibility. If there weren't any safety signage at all, then there'd be more sympathy. But when you actively reject safety signage that is there to help you, then you're the one who is rejecting the care of others. In that case, why waste sympathy on those people who took those risks and rejected the a priori help?
This isn't a complex sociopolitical scene like an underclass of drug-users trying to escape from their hellish reality, where cause and effect are hard to disentangle. It's people on holiday assuming that they're special and the safety signage doesn't apply to them. It's pretty straight-forward.
I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that part of the problem is over-encompassing safety rules in general, to the point that so many can be safely ignored (hello, Prop 65 in California) that it leaves people numb to the fact that some are real.
I am not sure how far I would take that line of thought, but I do think there's something to it.
I agree that wrapping everything in safety warnings is no more effective than doing without them and expecting everyone to rely on some unspecified common sense.
Soaking in most springs in the Park is illegal. However, the illegality is not based on the level of danger for a given spring.
Soaking is a great idea if done carefully. There are several places in YNP where it is allowed, officially or semi-officially.
In fact, every time I visit Yellowstone NP (like 5 times a year) it strikes me how silly it is that people are kept and are happy to stay on boardwalks and paved roads. They might just as well watch the BBC documentary and save everyone the trouble. If you are outdoors you should hike, swim, wade and sense the warm thermal waters. YNP is the most regulated and civilized park I know. I think this is sad.
Driving to Yellowstone on an interstate is probably more dangerous anyway.
There are millions of people travelling to these areas every year. As this article outlines, even a few thousands of people per year travelling unrestricted in this park in its first few decades of popularity has lead to long-lasting damage of park features that we are still deprived of experiencing in their original states more than a hundred years later. Visitors today continue to pollute the pools with garbage and wander off the marked areas to 'soak' in them despite the pleas, warnings, and boardwalks meant to deter this behavior.
Allowing millions of tourists from around the world, many without any respect or knowledge of how to conduct themselves in the wild in such a way as to leave minimal impact, would lead to a rapid and permanent destruction of the very park features that make the area worthy of preservation and visiting.
Your perspective on things doesn't work in a world with 7+ billion people who are increasingly able to travel to popular destinations. The trail and boardwalk restrictions in the park make it possible for all visitors to enjoy park features in perpetuity rather than all features being destroyed by a single selfish generation.
Soaking in a hot spring seems unnecessarily risky. There's too much chance of substantial temperature change. Better to soak in a pool that's fed from a hot spring. Rather than mess with park police, find hot springs where it's allowed.
Locals know places where it is relatively safe to soak in the hot water. Heck, you can go to Chico and pay a few bucks there to soak in the same water at no risk and drink a beer..
If there's a couple million people on the whole continent, sure. But the park doesn't have the restorative capacity for everyone who goes there to do what you propose which is pretty selfish and ignorant.
If it's on the way stop by Thermopolis WY. Charming little town and soaks are encouraged. They even have several bathhouses fed by the springs and it's a wonderful experience. I especially enjoy the hot spring fed steam room.
For one thing, we enjoy sharing the story, which is a useful cultural trend because it causes us to spread information about dangerous events and prevent people from being injured in the future. This is not quite as accurate as scientific data, but it can take advantage of neural circuitry which is not useful for science.
For another, it promotes a sense of shared identity of rule-followers, by criticizing people who break rules, which promotes pride in following rules and prevents people from breaking them. This is important because when I read a sign telling me to do something it is necessary that I trust the person who wrote the sign if I am to obey.
But like all forms of humorous entertainment it is not as amusing when we deliberate on it for too long. And there is a pernicious feedback effect of callousness which can arise from the sense of collective identity mentioned in the second paragraph. The positive effects of such activities seem to be best utilized when many cultural mores are practiced together to smooth out the "errors".
OK. How about "enjoyed and was amused by in a reflective, sad, and melancholy way all the while pondering why we were put on this earth with a functioning brain only to waste it by doing stupid things after having been repeatedly warned not to"?
It improves their self being because they can imagine in their heads using hindsight and a loaded story they would never be that stupid.
AKA Darwin awards.
Hopefully at some stage culture can wipe out the attitude and replace it with something better then using they deaths of the uneducated poor and mental ill for our betterment.
Deaths of uneducated and mentally ill people are sad.
The person in that story was not mentally ill, beyond being stupid and refusing to heed plainly obvious warnings, and there's no evidence he was uneducated.
There's a difference. There's nothing noble or innocent about being selfish and stubborn and refusing to heed warnings meant to keep people safe who aren't familiar with the serious dangers in a place like Yellowstone.
> nothing noble or innocent about being selfish and stubborn
Are you saying that people deliberately choose to be "selfish and stubborn" to the point of getting killed, and yet this is not a form of mental illness?
Um, yes? If you think being selfish and stubborn qualifies as a mental illness, I suggest you go talk to a professional psychologist. I'm quite sure they'll disagree. People do stupid and reckless stuff all the time (esp. 16-25yo males as the other commenter pointed out); that doesn't make them mentally ill.
