
Free Solo and Economic Growth - portobello
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2019/05/free-solo-and-economic-growth.html
======
zopa
There's much more technology involved than Cochrane acknowledges. Alex didn't
on-sight that climb: he practiced, over and over again, using ropes and gear
that have existed in their current form for 60 years at best. The same goes
for how he got so good: he climbed with ropes and gear (well, sometimes), and
learned from people who used gear nearly all the time.

Much of that technology looks old, but isn't: ropes have been around a while,
but modern climbing ropes stretch so as to drastically lower the peak forces
on your protection. For example. Modern climbing exists in large part because
we developed technology that lets you try to climb hard high stuff without
dying.

Now, you could also get good just by bouldering, staying close to the ground.
But that's not how actual existing climbing developed: bouldering grew out of
crag climbing, which grew out of mountaineering. It's a little silly to wonder
why people weren't very good at a game we just invented, before we invented
it.

Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were
throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century British
mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan climbers
in 1350?

~~~
tomxor
> Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were
> throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century
> British mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan
> climbers in 1350?

Even through the early 19th century climbers were much better than given
credit for, part of this is also how grading shifts over time. I've
experienced this first hand, climbed some old "HVS" routes (fairly easy grade)
established in early 19th century in wales (UK), only to find them in the low
extremes by modern standards, maybe E2/3 (no this wasn't mere sandbaging), on
top of which they were using heavy gear, unsafe gear and mountain boots!

I have much respect for forgotten pioneers of climbing, they were much tougher
than they appeared on the face of their accomplishments.

We all have little jokes in climbing when conditions make routes harder like
rain, cold, dirt, birds whatever, "oh this bird shit turns it into a VS / E12
today".. it's silly, but when applied generally, it's true - every aspect that
is different can make the same climb significantly harder or easier for
others, those pioneers probably were climbing E9 for them.

~~~
rurp
I learned out how to climb multi-pitch at Tahquitz, where the American grading
system was first established. 5.9+ in that area is a terrifying grade.
American grades were originally a closed system that topped out at 5.9. For a
time climbers were climbing harder and harder routes, but rating them all 5.9.
The system eventually got switched to be open ended, but grades are sticky and
it definitely helps to know when a route was established in addition to what
the guide book rating is.

~~~
tomxor
Yes it was the same for the British adjectival trad system, ES used to be the
top grade (after HVS) and this grade is now divided into an open ended scale
E1-E11... but I think this probably caused some hard climbs to be categorised
as HVS in an attempt to differentiate from the _really_ hard climbs in ES at
the time. It's worth checking the FA date around this grade in old crags for
this reason, but even being aware in my case - it was surprising just how much
harder they can be.

------
skohan
> Alex is wearing modern climbing boots

As a climber this hurt me a bit to read. They're not boots, they're shoes
John!

Also I'm glad that the movie is successful, and that the sport of climbing is
getting mainstream attention, but personally I'm more impressed by the
accomplishment of Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgeson in free-climbing the dawn
wall with protection. In my mind that is a better representation of the
highest level of achievement within the sport. Climbing without protection has
more to do with being a daredevil than a climber, and while I understand why
it's so impressive, I am conflicted about this particular achievement being
celebrated and potentially emulated.

Pedantry aside, the article makes some interesting points.

~~~
justinator
* As a climber this hurt me a bit to read. They're not boots, they're shoes John!*

"rock boots" is a perfectly fine name for climbing shoes. I think "climbing
boots" is just fine

~~~
skohan
Maybe it's regional but I have never heard of climbing shoes referred to as
"rock boots", much less "climbing boots".

~~~
justinator
Often used in England, which you could argue was where the hobby of climbing
something other than a mountain gained traction.

------
tomxor
Not to detract too much from the author's point... But as a climber myself, I
think climbing technology does actually contribute to advances in pure
climbing skill more than you might think.

Take just a single aspect of the gear - climbing rope, modern rope is a
technological wonder, light, super strong and extremely dynamic, it's part of
what makes it possible to push yourself to the limit and repeatedly fall off
routes safely, with zero injury. After a certain point you cannot improve in
climbing without pushing beyond your limits and failing, modern technology
allows you to push further and further and survive and retain your skills, and
this is a significant part of why the pure climbing skill of climbers today is
so advanced.

The author has made the same observation but ignoring climbing technology and
focusing on internet etc for spread of knowledge - but there are many skills
that do not survive conceptualization and communication in tact, for those,
you need specialist technology to advance your learning beyond the basics.

Go back 80 years, you will find weak, heavy hemp rope, rope harnesses that
will probably kill you, and people literally carried rocks as gear, shoving
them in cracks with the rope behind them. It's not hard to see how limiting
this is in learning the skill, as you move forward in time gear becomes more
advanced but still very heavy.

~~~
moredhel
I agree that more modern climbing gear is fantastic and definitely gives me a
great deal of confidence when I am pushing my limits, I don't think that it
would stop me from pushing at all.

Even using gear from 30-40 years ago, it is possible to climb with relative
safety, the new gear is mainly only an incremental improvement in safety.

That's not to say that I would happily take a fall on older equipment, just
that the main element of danger is generally not the equipment but the
surrounding environment.

~~~
jonahrd
But getting to the point where you can ascend El Cap in 4 hours requires
modern gear. In Free Solo, most of the documentary focuses on his progress
over years practicing the route.

Getting to a specific point on the face of El Cap used to be a weeks-long
endeavor in itself, pushing everyone to their physical and technological
limits. The fact that he was able to go for day-trips to any point on the wall
to practice is a testament to all the technology involved.

He used modern ropes, hauling gear, etc, to essentially turn the route into a
gym that he could practice on. He used modern climbing holds to re-create the
dyno problem so he could practice at home. He literally memorized the entire
sequence of moves.

It would be impossible to learn a route to the level that it requires to
ascend it in 4 hours without modern technology. Imagine if practicing the dyno
problem required having to fund and set up a 47 day expedition to reach it.

~~~
cgh
That's simply untrue. Climbing technology is fundamentally unchanged from the
early '80s. Since then it's been a process of refinement, with the big
exception of shoe technology. I acknowledge that TC Pros are tremendous shoes
compared to eg '80s-era Fires.

~~~
tomxor
Untrue of the parent comment perhaps, but the article is talking about going
back two centuries.

Regardless, the 80s was the inception of most modern climbing gear sure; but
the intermediate years were not only refinements but improvements through the
culture assimilating that gear to the point of maximum utility - much the same
could be said about personal computing, although the technological advances
are larger, much of the advances are cultural, learning how to best utilise
it.

------
justinator
Hmm, weird article - I wish the author knew more about climbing, as they are
getting it a bit wrong.

Alex couldn't have been birthed 100 years ago and climbed El Cap. The route he
used still needed to be established by others. Alex climbed that already-
established routes dozens of times before committing to not use all the tech
the author thinks he doesn't need. The rehearsal was key. If there's a
takeaway from him, it's: "practice".

The route also had to be modified to allow anyone to climb it free - I'm
talking about modifying the rock itself. 100 years ago, the climb would have
been different. Not hugely so, but one key handhold present that was there
before could have made all the difference.

The happened in the first free ascent of the Nose too - an entire pitch was
chipped in an attempt to free it, by a different person. They failed, but the
route, once chipped, cannot be healed.

------
gameswithgo
Fun bit of trivia on this topic: Alex was the first person to climb El Cap
with no protection. The first person to climb The Nose route without using the
gear for aid, was a woman, Lynn Hill. So El Cap went from a weeks long project
using anything they had for aid, to climbed with rope used only for protection
by a woman, in a day, and now to Alex climbing El Cap (via an easier route
than Hill) with no protection at all.

~~~
justinator
_So El Cap went from a weeks long project using anything they had for aid_

Alex has also climbed that same route, in a comparable style, in under two
hours.

~~~
Fricken
Anything goes for speed ascents of The Nose, so long as you do it fast. There
are aid sections, it's not entirely free.

Alex Honnold has not freed _the nose_ with or without a rope. His nose speed
record partner, Tommy Caldwell, is one of only a handful of people who have.

Lynn Hill's first free ascent of _The Nose_ was a monumental achievement, for
a woman or a man.

It's confusing because _The Nose_ describes both the feature on El Cap, and
the route that takes the plum line up that feature. Honnold's Free Solo of the
Nose was on a route called Freerider.

~~~
justinator
_Alex Honnold has not freed the nose with or without a rope_

That's why I said, "in a comparable style". The FA was done on aid, as was
Alex's speed ascent with Tommy.

But not completely comparable. The FA had to establish anchors, drill in
bolts, figure out the route. More standing on the shoulders of giants, than
anything I think.

Then, it's just optimization.

 _Honnold 's Free Solo of the Nose was on a route called Freerider. _

I think the confusion may be your own? The Nose is well, The Nose. Honnold
climbed a route off to the side on a feature called (initially) the Salathe
Wall.

~~~
Fricken
I concede, I was confused.

------
dpflan
Regarding economic growth and growth theories, I found Dr. Paul Romer's (2018
Economics winner) Nobel Prize Lecture on his work, economic growth theories,
and hope for the future to be excellent and stimulating.

> _Paul M. Romer: Lecture in Economic Sciences 2018_ :
> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZmgZGIZtiM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZmgZGIZtiM)

> _Nobel Page_ : [https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-
> sciences/2018/rom...](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-
> sciences/2018/romer/lecture/)

~~~
lpcam33
In the video the economist talks about progress just as if progress is the end
in itself, but is not. We need to have a goal in order to progress to that
goal. To have infinite progress is the same to say that at least one of this
things:

We don’t know where we want to go; We are infinitely greed; We are infinitely
incompetent;

We can use the example of the rope. There was many technological progress in
the last decades to manufacture good gear for climbing, but as time goes by we
will need to spend much more resources in research to get less and less
improvements on the rope. There will be a time were the climber needs are
fulfilled and we could just spare the nature (ex: the mountains that they like
to climb) and enjoy what we have accomplished.

------
moredhel
I watched and really enjoyed this movie. Essentially for both of these
reasons.

1\. The psychology of fear and how we can learn to overcome fear. I think
there is a lot to say about the tantalising experience of facing death.

2\. The evolutionary nature of a discipline. Some disciplines improve with
technology, others with knowledge.

I really love technical sports and am inspired by the amount of sharing in the
communities. It is also easy to see in the newer sports how much progress has
been made.

It's exciting seeing how far we can push ourselves through what we previously
thought was difficult/impossible and redefine the frontiers of the sport

------
trollied
If you have seen and enjoyed Free Solo, I can also recommend the Reel Rock
series & Meru.

If you haven't seen Free Solo (because you're not interested in climbing, or
whatever) it's still worth a watch.

[https://www.redbull.com/int-
en/tv/show/AP-1MD65N6X92111/reel...](https://www.redbull.com/int-
en/tv/show/AP-1MD65N6X92111/reel-rock)

[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2545428/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2545428/)

------
mbostleman
There's a couple the things the author missed - not that it changes the
conclusion that much, but adds more context.

The first is how the rise in indoor rock gyms in turn gave rise to youth
leagues and competition. This has created a huge leap forward in the skills of
elite climbers because many today (the "gym rat" generation) have been
climbing only slightly less longer than they've been walking.

The second is how the funding of outdoor adventure/exploration has evolved
through the last couple of centuries, from securing precious resources (though
mountaineering never had much of that), to a sort of angel/philanthropic model
(geographic societies and alpine clubs), to government backed nationalism, to
the current gear branding and sponsorship that is fueled by social media. This
current model drives a huge amount of activity in outdoor endeavors that have
helped create the crowd sourced effect he's talking about.

------
temporalparts
This analysis is great, but I think there's a highly underrated economic point
to be made; technology has unlocked crucial business innovations for climbing.
50 years ago, if you are into climbing, others might hear about it in a
specialized tv show or magazine. You also needed to be very rich to be able to
afford the time and equipment costs of climbing.

Now with social media driven by the internet, the sponsorship model has
enabled people with a passion to be able to sustain a living pursuing that
hobby. Independent of the knowledge transfer, deeper knowledge is being
created from more people being able to devote their lives to the hobby.

Here's an article about FreeSolo's earnings from sponsorship:
[https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-us/magazine/money-diary-
alex...](https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-us/magazine/money-diary-alex-honnold)

------
amsha
> I think that in studying economic growth, we (and especially we in the
> Silicon Valley) focus way too much on gadgets, and too little on the simple
> fact of human knowledge of how to do things.

This is a major component of software's power – it's a tool for formalizing
knowledge and skills permanently and distributing it rapidly at ~0 marginal
cost. If a piece of software is both correct and performant, it can last a
very, very long time, possibly outliving its creators. And the best software
composes, so one program can build on top of another to build up a massive
skillset.

------
burritofanatic
This is a very interesting look at climbing as it relates to knowledge
transmission.

Prior to YouTube, learning proper form really required you to probably take
lessons and live/breath/be super friendly with some really good climbers as a
necessity. Now, you can watch a number of good climbers online on having
proper technique to get 70% there.

For example this video demonstrates how climbing crimps (a specific type of
hold) requires more than just finger strength:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws06PjI4FTU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws06PjI4FTU)

Stuff like this was nearly impossible to convey by book. If you want to learn
how to be a better swimmer for example because you didn't take up swimming
until you were in your 20s, it was very difficult. I did this as an adult, and
each private lesson with an instructor to improve my form was $100 in
recession dollars. Now, you can gather so much online and iron out the
wrinkles with live instruction.

Disclaimer: the video linked above is my friend's YouTube channel.

~~~
rurp
I might be biased since I learned to climb before YouTube, but I find it quite
difficult to learn or teach others through coaching or watching. Although I
don't think that holds for the basics, if someone doesn't know what a drop
knee is then a video of one would be helpful.

But past that, so much depends on subtle weight shifts and tailoring moves to
ones specific body; it's hard to learn that stuff outside of just trying hard
moves yourself and making small adjustments.

------
crimsonalucard
John Cochrane is not the first person to think of the economy as the transfer,
flow and storage of knowledge.

See this book:

[https://www.amazon.com/Why-Information-Grows-Evolution-
Econo...](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Information-Grows-Evolution-
Economies/dp/0465096840/ref=sr_1_2?crid=1LS770SW1DIRV&keywords=how+information+grows&qid=1558025956&s=gateway&sprefix=How+inform%2Caps%2C191&sr=8-2)

The author of this book not only thinks about the economy in terms of
knowledge but he relates it to information theory and entropy.

------
cookingoils
I would have named this article, “Free Solo Market Cap”.

Also disappointing read. What about comparing climbers to day traders or
investors that take economic risks that often have very real consequences in
other people’s lives.

------
JacobDotVI
The author's point about dissemination of information is spot-on.

A couple of years ago, I read Medieval Technology and Social Change, by Lynn
White ([https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Technology-Social-Change-
Whi...](https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Technology-Social-Change-
White/dp/0195002660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485437692&sr=8-1&keywords=Medieval+Technology+and+Social+Change%2C+by+Lynn+White))
as recommended by PG. Technically a textbook, it was a dry and drab look at
the history of various innovations during Midlevel times - the stirrup, the
windmill, etc. The 30,000ft view is that when innovations are introduced it
takes a long time both for them to spread and for someone to finally exploit
them to their greatest contributive state. While the steam engine was not
invented until 1712, all of the components had been available since Roman
times. It took quite a long time to find one of the greatest uses of those
innovations. At least, it used to take a long time -

Now, information and innovation spread much faster. Society moves much faster.
The innovation of the stirrup took a thousands years to propagate. The
innovation of the internet took less than 50 years; Smartphones took 5. The
pace of global change is increasing exponentially. A modern entrepreneur must
have line of sight to the latest innovations in order to anticipate their
impact on his or her society, industry, business, and personal well being. No
one wanted to be the new Nokia, Borders Books, or Woolworths.

But, let's take a step back from specific innovations, and look at global
mega-shifts in society. From the agricultural revolution, to the various metal
ages, through the industrial revolution we are now being lapped by the waves
of the Information Age.

As humans we quickly absorb each individual change brought forth in the
information age - email, cellular connections, the world wide web, the smart
phone, etc. Can you imagine running your business without your iPhone? We very
quickly adapt to the here and now and forget the way it was (Thank you
evolution!). However, what we are not good at perceiving is the systematic,
second-order changes that the Information Age will bring. The Agricultural Age
brought these changes over thousands of years. The Industrial Age brought them
over generations. The Information Age will bring them with alarming speed that
we may not be prepared for:

* Retailer's monopoly on local distribution was destroyed by Amazon.com + UPS

* Newspapers have been shattered by the internet's ability to breakdown their stranglehold on the distribution of information.

* The telecom world was turned upside down by the introduction of the cell phones, the internet, and the disruption of their monopoly on land-lines (Note that AT&T is a mere brand name, which was purchased on the cheap by SBC).

* The traditional media world felt this shock earlier this year when a man with a twitter account was able to upend their distribution monopoly on the news and they were left reacting and pandering instead of dictating.

But these are a number of examples in the commercial world. What about society
itself? What about the global financial systems? What about governments?

Note: this was part of a letter I sent out with a Christmas gift a few years
ago. Full letter here: [https://blog.jacob.vi/the-sovereign-
individual/](https://blog.jacob.vi/the-sovereign-individual/)

