
How Chris McCandless Died: An Update - bkudria
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/chris-mccandless-died-update
======
woodchuck64
What's fascinating is inferring the other motives and agendas swirling around
the issue that are then cut through by hard science (in Krakauer's favor):

From [http://www.alaskacommons.com/2013/09/22/what-everyone-is-
get...](http://www.alaskacommons.com/2013/09/22/what-everyone-is-getting-
wrong-about-chris-mccandless/):

"The forensic question “Were the seeds poisonous?” is of interest only because
it sheds light on broader, more contentious question, expressed bluntly as
“How stupid was Chris McCandless?” If, like Alaska Dispatch reporters Dermot
Cole and Craig Medred (and again), you think McCandless was a clueless, crazy
knucklehead, arrogant in his disdain for wild nature and its perils, then you
want to think the seeds weren’t poisonous; the kid just died of starvation
because he was too stupid/crazy/arrogant to make it to safety."

"But if, like Jon Krakauer (and, in the interest of full disclosure, like me),
you have some level of empathy with or sympathy for McCandless, you want to
think the seeds were poisonous—he was doing his best to survive a difficult
enterprise and was done in because he consumed something that was not known to
be poisonous until two decades after his death."

~~~
Isamu
I have empathy for McCandless, he didn't deserve to die and I wish he hadn't.
But clearly he didn't know what he was getting into, didn't prepare and
unwittingly contributed to his own death. It's not a judgment about his
character. He wasn't a knucklehead, he was probably fairly intelligent.

He was probably just unaware, like most people, how hard it is to subsist in
nature alone, and how harsh the beautiful landscape can be.

In the right context, ignorance is a kind of superpower. When you survive and
it all works out, you are a genius. Many successful people start their story
with: "If I had known what I was getting into, I would never have started..."

So yeah, I kind of admire this ignorance ... in other people. I am WAY too
self-conscious and introspective to embark on some enterprise where I know
that I know nothing.

Oh, and the poisonous seed thing - he was just eating a plant whose edibility
was not established. I dunno, maybe people think nature is benevolent, and
sure I can think of a bunch of edible plants in the woods near my house ...
but I can think of plenty that are poisonous, or mildly toxic, or
carcinogenic, or indigestible, or otherwise liable to disagree with you. He
didn't know if he should or shouldn't eat it. He was rolling the dice. If you
roll the dice and you live, you're a genius and in a few years you get to
write your memoirs as the next Thoreau.

~~~
Nanzikambe

        "But clearly he didn't know what he was getting into
        didn't prepare and unwittingly contributed to his own
        death."
    

In the postcard at the very top of the article Chris says:

"If this adventure proves fatal and you don't ever hear from me again I want
you to know your (sic) a great man. I now walk into the wild"

And earlier he asks his friend to return all mail to sender for the
foreseeable future.

That and everything else I've ever read has made me think he was entirely
aware of the potential for danger in the wilderness. He walked in & did it
any-ways.

Plenty people look to test themselves in nature's crucible with minimal
preparation, fully cognisant of the risks. Sometimes they lose. I think
looking down upon them with the rosy vision of decades hindsight from the
comfort & safety of home does them a disservice. Their lives, their choices.

I hope Chris found what he was looking for.

~~~
keenerd
Alternatively, he was a clueless kid who fantasized about disappearing into
the wilderness ala Hatchet or My Side of the Mountain. Cancelling your mail
and talking melodramatically does not mean you _intend_ to die, just that you
intend to cut all ties.

~~~
morganvachon
I have a friend from high school who, at 40 years old, had an amicable divorce
with his wife so he could go do something similar to Christopher's adventure,
but here in the backwoods of Georgia. His philosophy is that we're all going
to die sometime, so we should live the life we always wanted to live on this
"ball of dirt and water hurtling around a ball of fire" as he puts it. I envy
him, as I'm also an avid outdoorsman who never gets to go outdoors anymore
(from the house to the car to work and back does not count as "outdoors"). My
friend studied flora and fauna for years, both because he loves nature and in
preparation for the rest of his life on his own.

So far he's been out there for the better part of a year, sleeping in a bivy
sack, eating what nature provides, riding his mountain bike and towing his
trailer with his few worldly possessions, a backwoods hobo by choice. He's
documenting the entire adventure and plans to write about it. He is fully
aware of successful adventurers before him, as well as those who died to soon
like McCandless. Who knows how long he'll live this life, but he looks to
McCandless as an inspiration, not a "clueless kid", and he's doing just fine.

~~~
keenerd
Your friend spent years studying. He also had the sense to pick one of the
most hospitable and temperate locales in North America. And even in a friendly
environment, he acknowledges that he needs more supplies than he could easily
carry. I bet he also had multiple plans for bailing out if events went really
sour. Just from what little you've said, he sounds responsible, level-headed
and practical. He could probably accomplish anything he sets his mind to, and
I look forward to buying his book.

But other than living outdoors, your friend has little in common with
McCandless.

(Nothing says you can't consider someone to be both clueless and an
inspiration. I consider all of history to be an inspiration to do better,
including the less-clueful half of the past.)

------
michael_h
If you found 'Into The Wild' interesting, make sure to checkout 'Into Thin
Air' from the same author. It's about a summit attempt of Everest that went
awry and is awesome.

Edit: come to think of it, I've read pretty much everything that Jon Krakauer
has written. The guy's grocery lists are probably well thought out and have a
compelling narrative.

~~~
rondon2
I read everything he writes. The only time I have had a problem with anything
he said was in "Under the Banner of Heaven" he partially blamed the Mormon
church for the kidnap and rape of Elizabeth Smart. I suspect that the guy that
kidnapped her would have been a piece of shit no matter what religion he was
born into.

~~~
pstuart
I'm guessing you must be Mormon to take offense. For all the glory of God that
religion may bring, there's a lot of less "praiseworthy" elements. It's
important to acknowledge all of it.

~~~
briandear
Actually, if he were Mormon, "shit" would be the last word he'd write.

------
notacoward
This is pretty awesome. Clausen seemed a bit snotty about the original theory
not being in a peer-reviewed journal. Now the followup is, and the underlying
science also blows a hole in one of Clausen's own papers. He messed with the
wrong guy. Citizen science FTW.

~~~
jakevn
I don't think it's snotty to be skeptical of the results. After all, their
original hypothesis turned out to be incorrect. ODAP was not present in the
seeds.

Because the author took Clausen's consideration seriously, they were able to
uncover their mistake and correct it.

~~~
notacoward
It's not snotty to be skeptical, but it is snotty to be "skeptical" because
the theory comes from an amateur, and to go on about "highly technical and
complicated" etc. That's pure appeal to authority, the error of which is amply
demonstrated by the fact that one of Clausen's own papers got through peer
review with _the exact same mistake_. Hopefully he has learned to address the
science, instead of the source or the publication process, next time.

~~~
jakevn
It would, however, be easy for a non-peer reviewed amateur to make a mistake.
It's an appeal to authority, but in this case I don't believe it's a fallacy.

Furthermore, since peer review is fallible, I don't believe Clausen's
identical mistake making it through peer review proves the process any less
important.

Perhaps Clausen's criticisms were not well intended, but wouldn't any
respectable scientist demand rigor before seriously considering such a
hypothesis? After all, the burden of proof is not on Clausen.

~~~
notacoward
The mirror twins of ad hominem and ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) are
_always_ fallacies, regardless of person or circumstances. To say that certain
people should get away with them is _itself_ an appeal to authority. In logic,
science, or debate, the identity of the person making or disputing a claim is
irrelevant. If Clausen had a concern about the data, he should have said so.
If he had a concern about the reasoning applied to that data, he should have
said so. That would have been "demanding rigor" as you put it, but he did
neither. Instead he addressed _identity_ , and that's where he came off as
snotty.

~~~
jakevn
He did have a concern about the data. His concern that was it was not peer-
reviewed.

Had the data come from someone with a proven track record in the field, he may
have found it worth his time to peer review it himself.

Appeal to authority is not always a fallacy. It would have been fallacious if
he was outright denying or accepting a hypothesis as being the logical
conclusion based on one's standing. All that I read from it, however, was that
he had a hard time believing it, and would not spend the time to look into the
data personally, but that it should be reviewed.

I don't think it's illogical to take more seriously the hypothesis of someone
with a proven track record of good research.

~~~
notacoward
If he couldn't spend the time to examine it, he should have just said that
instead of taking the time to blather about journalistic vs. academic review
processes. Clearly he did have the time; he just used it poorly.

~~~
sanderjd
Your argument is interesting, but it seems to boil down to dismissing the
entire system of peer reviewed journals. If they can't be appealed to, and
everything needs to be independently researched based on personal expertise,
then they have no purpose. Would you agree with that?

~~~
mmusson
I took his meaning to be that appealing to peer reviewed journals as an
"authority" is what is wrong. The value of the peer review system is the
rigorous process and the continuing search for the truth.

------
antirez
"The death of Chris McCandless should serve as a caveat to other foragers:
Even when some parts of a plant are known to be edible, other parts of the
same species may contain dangerous concentrations of toxic compounds."

Definitely, the most obvious example is potatoes. The fruit and other parts
contain solanine. In general there is a great amount of danger around us,
within 100 square meters of my home I can recognize at least 5/6 toxic
species, so when one learns to eat a plant, it is important to also learn how
all the similar plans that are dangerous look like, and what part of the plans
are edible and what not.

------
scott_s
Discussion on the original:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6376498](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6376498)

------
michaelbuddy
There are many hooks in the story and the "whodunit" or in this case
'whatdunit' is a hook that keeps a lot of readers through the story. I don't
have a big log of books I've read in my life as compared to some, but this was
one that I would pick up and devour and then push away from me upset. I'd
stare at it thinking I didn't want to read more of the tragedy then I'd pick
it up again. I can't think of any other book like that I've felt the same
with.

That Chris' story has a proper resolution is important to the author and for
those of us who took Chris' journey by reading Krakauer's book. There are
still plenty of mysteries within it aside from the cause of death. Why did he
do what he did? There's a theory out there that he may have been suffering an
onset of schizophrenia. We have a good record of what he said to people and
his journaling, but we will always be limited by what remains of that.

He was in many ways a very amazing person. If you recall he sought to 'kill
the false being within' him. His seeming desperation to seek his most
authentic self through a journey and a physical and emotional withdrawal from
his family and familiar lifestyle (as I understand, which I may not) is
something that is as relatable as it is strange and unique.

Nuggets of the idea you hear elsewhere by some pretty amazing individuals. For
example, I have loads of respect for Bruce Lee. He was a celebrity and a
person of deep thought but of massive action in his life. He made a point in
an interview of the challenge to being able to actually express yourself
honestly in what you do. To anyone seeking authenticity in themselves rather
than whatever expectations or reactions real or imagined the rest of the world
may have, to be completely free of that mindset.

I hope Chris believed he succeeded in the end. But I selfishly wish a lot more
that he would have maybe almost succeeded but instead came back to tell the
rest of us about it in his own words.

------
reality_czech
Why doesn't someone just feed wild potatoes to a few rats for a few weeks and
see if they die? Did we forget how to actually do science?

------
Throwaway1224
i saw the movie and thought the alexander supertramp guy came across like a
huge asshole.

i also watch pro wrestling.

------
qsymmachus
Do the exact mechanics of Chris McCandless's death really matter? He didn't
take the wilderness seriously and that's what got him killed. We shouldn't
romanticize his stupidity.

~~~
herbig
The last sentence of the article:

"And because many people—both admirers of McCandless and his detractors—regard
“Into the Wild” as a cautionary tale, it’s important to know as much as
possible about how McCandless actually may have died."

~~~
code_duck
Does it really matter whether he was poisoned by one chemical or another, or
simply starved to death? Either way, the cautionary tale of against deciding
to go live in the woods without adequate preparation stands.

~~~
burkaman
Well, I think it's worth finding out just for the sake of knowing.

But as a cautionary tale, yeah it still matters. Say you meet some guy
planning on taking this same "adventure", you show him Into the Wild, he says
"no problem, I've been hunting and trapping for 10 years, no way I'll starve".

People who just think "It's a bad idea in general, I don't need to know
exactly how he died" were probably not in any danger of making the same
mistake. If you want to convince people on the fence, you need specifics.

~~~
code_duck
Whether he died because he either ate a poisonous plant or starved, the issue
is the same: lack of proper preparation for a food supply.

~~~
URSpider94
Many people view foraging for food in the wilderness to be a perfectly
adequate plan for having a food supply. If the theory is correct, he didn't
starve to death because of poor planning, he starved to death because he ate
something poisonous, which then prevented him from foraging for food.

You seem to be implying that foraging isn't an OK way to feed oneself in the
wilderness.

------
Panino
Krakauer's arguments on this subject are based on conjecture and ignore facts.
He conjectures that McCandless misidentified a plant he had been identifying
for an extended time, for another plant. Unlikely. He makes claims without
providing supporting evidence. Sorry, but saying "there is evidence that..."
is not evidence. He states that eating this plant poisoned him to death,
despite the fact that he died almost 3 weeks later. The autopsy ruled the
death as starvation. The natural conclusion of extreme, extended calorie
deficiency is starvation.

------
aaron695
> And because many people—both admirers of McCandless and his
> detractors—regard “Into the Wild” as a cautionary tale, it’s important to
> know as much as possible about how McCandless actually may have died."

Cautionary tales are just that, tales. It's entertainment pure and simple.

Cautionary tales have never taught, if anything they do the opposite and
create wrong thought patterns.

We don't need to know to not go off to live in the crazy wilderness
unprepared. Eat less cheese burgers is a boring story(Morgan Spurlock aside)
but a better lesson.

The fact people seem to have the need to self justify that they are
entertained about stories of someone else's downfall is an interesting
condition.

~~~
welly
Actually, the least interesting part of the story for me was that he died from
poisoning. I was entertained by the rest of the story, that he decided to quit
everything and leave everything behind, to start a new life of some
description. I wouldn't describe that as a story of someone's downfall. I'm
not sure I would go as far as to say the entire film was about someone's
downfall and I find it rather strange that you do too. It was a story of being
free.

~~~
aaron695
I personally think the ending was an important contrast to the beginning from
a traditional story perspective. Has he succeeded would it have been a
movie....

I do agree the beginning was a great story about being free and what I enjoyed
most.

