In Defense of Adventure

Adventure
1 a: an undertaking usually involving danger and unknown risks
1 b: the encountering of risks; the spirit of adventure

It seems that risk taking is a common trait in people. Not everyone needs risk but many do and even among those that enjoy risk sports we often criticize those who take more risks than we would or different risks than we enjoy. True adventure however requires risk, real or perceived. As someone progresses through the learning curve of a risk sport it becomes harder to perceive a risk where little risk actually exists. For instance in climbing the beginner sees risk in top-roping at the gym. Soon the risk of the top-rope fades and that person seeks out to lead in the gym, then that fades and they take it outside to a sport area, soon they find themselves seeking out cliffs that are in a more natural state and do not have a safety infrastructure in place or at least one that has minimal infrastructure.

Now I know that not everyone that rock climbs is seeking risk. Some enjoy the movement, the social scene, the views and environment and even the cool equipment. That is not to say that adventure or risk is completely out of the mix, it just isn't as important nor is it a priority. I would even submit that adventure as a priority in rock climbing is as variable and individual as each person is. It is that individual view of reasonable risk that often creates conflict about style. To a top roper leading might seem so risky as to be reckless, to the sport leader traditional climbing may seem reckless and to the traditional leader, soloing might seem reckless. However to someone who enjoys hiking or trail running, all rock climbing may seem reckless.

So if adventure requires risk and if that risk is real there will be times when there will be negative consequences. For the most part we call these negative consequences accidents but an accident is an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance. But in adventure, risk is expected even sought after so when the consequences of the risk taken are negative it is not exactly accurate to call it an accident. Oddly the very fact that negative consequences could occur is why it is adventure and why some choose that particular activity.

So for me the "pursuit of happiness" requires adventure and in particular, adventure in the mountains. That means to me terrain that is for the most part infrastructure free. I don't believe that all cliffs and mountains should be infrastructure free, I respect others needs for that infrastructure but I would like the same respect for my needs and as with all things there is the gray area, because I do sometimes enjoy that infrastructure.

My happiness is also dependent on not being criminalized for my risk taking. I do not want society to officially judge my risk tolerance or legislate how much risk I am allowed to take. Of late many make the argument that society through their government has the right to do just that because of the cost and yes, the risk of rescue. I believe the need to rescue an adventurer is more a need of society than it is a consequence of adventure. Our humanity pushes us to help those in trouble either directly or through our institutions. To corrupt that humanity into an excuse to regulate and deny us the freedom of the hills causes me great anxiety. It is true that rescues cost money and sometimes lives but as is often stated to justify the cost of war "freedom isn't free", I use that concept here to justify the cost of our need/desire to help. It seems that the amount we as a society spend on the negative consequences of mountaineering is a small price to pay for the freedom to travel in the risky natural world of the mountains