by GroundquestMSA » Oct 5, 2014 7:44 pm
Efficiency and Safety
Some of the same principles can be applied to both topics. Efficiency and safety are both important and can be intimately related under certain circumstances. I don't intend to write "against" either, only to talk about some examples of detrimental fixation on increasing both, without regard for circumstantial factors or common sense.
Efficiency, as Chad has noted above, is not the same as speed, though the two are often connected. Efficiency is the ability to get maximum output from minimum input. It should be immediately obvious that more efficiency is not always desirable. At its extremes, it starts to look like greed, selfishness, and laziness. When efficiency is treated as a priority, other things of value are in danger of being sacrificed. What has been sacrificed by a global commerce whose only goal, only value, is profit, which is just another word for monetary efficiency? Blind pursuit of efficiency in the management of a household sacrifices self-sufficiency. Blind pursuit of an efficient descent into Ellison's would sacrifice the structural integrity of the body, and probably hurt...
But this is all philosophical, and this thread is really about climbing, so I'll start by re-telling the story of my start in vertical caving. I climbed my first few pits with prusiks, and then bought a couple of handled ascenders and used the Jumar system, or "jugging" for several more. This was all without any instruction or input from anyone. I learned about prusiks from a knot book and found ascenders on Ebay. Worried about a possible lack of safety, I asked for advice on this forum, and was immediately informed that jugging was wildly inefficient. When I first tried a frog system, I expected a dramatically easier/faster/better experience. All I got was a slower experience. I now understand the disadvantages of jugging for long distances, but this was my first exposure to the fallacious doctrine of The Holy Efficiency. There is no question that jugging, or a Texas prusik, isn't efficient. The questions are; Does it matter? When is efficiency important?
I fully believe that a basic truth exists that can be applied to lots of things, including climbing: If it isn't hard, it doesn't need to be easier. When I was jugging 20-90' pits, I was operating out of my surplus. My arms were not fatigued, so there was no need for them to be less fatigued. If I undertake a climb with a method that will force me to operate on the margins of my strength and stamina, then I need a more efficient method. Scott and others are right in saying that efficiency becomes more important when problems arise, that efficiency is a matter of safety. I feel that the only real argument for greater efficiency must be directly tied to greater safety, and not just theoretical safety. The principle above can also be applied to safety: If it isn't unsafe, it doesn't need to be safer. It is not irresponsible to assess the likelihood of complications instead of assuming that they will happen, and must be taken for granted. There are endless possible complications. Our responsibility is to ask ourselves which of these is most likely, and how we will deal with them if they occur. To fail in this preparation is foolish, no matter how we choose to climb.
So what are some possible complications that would make the efficiency of a Texas prusik a real problem? A badly injured caver, or one with one arm completely disabled could find such an ascent impossible. However, it is likely that such an injured caver would be unable to make an unaided climb anyway. So the real question is; how likely am I to be injured to such an extent that a prusik ascent will be impossible, but a frog will still be manageable? Perhaps a group of wet, exhausted, cavers after a long trip could become hypothermic waiting on slow prusikers. On these sorts of trips, a faster and easier system would likely be preferable. Maybe the cave in question is intensely strenuous, and every possible drop of energy should be conserved to successfully navigate the cave, or accomplish the goals of the trip. What though of this cave: An already rigged 19' drop located 400' from the entrance. There are a few leads to dig on 40' from the bottom of the drop, and about 100' to survey. The cave is dry, but there are tight squeezes and the passage is pristine and heavily decorated. Using the basic system I outlined at the beginning of this topic, we can put everything I need; vertical gear for two people, survey gear, a trowel, extra batteries, some painkiller, a little water, and some granola in our pockets plus one of those cute little GGG survey pouches. I have judged any possible safety disadvantages to be unrealistic, and value a soda straw or a bit of beautiful rimstone more than saving a little tiny bit of time or energy. "Well, under those circumstances," you might say, "prusiking will be fine." I have no doubt though, that if I had provided the details of this one of my projects at the beginning of the thread, someone would still have suggested a more efficient way. Why?
Some feel that they have the responsibility to provide disclaimers to anyone who may read about potentially unsafe methods. Some are most interested in caving as an excuse to collect and employ increasingly "better" gear and technique. Some are indoctrinated without ever giving serious thought to the reasoning, or lack of reasoning, behind popular arguments. Some are really concerned about the safety and success of other cavers, and see what they actually know to be an area that could be significantly improved. Whatever the case, why not think about these things before pushing a better way to someone who may not need or want it. And let me say that I am not upset if you suggest a better way. I have been helped very, very much by your suggestions and will continue to be.
The Earth is being more efficiently destroyed than ever, and this destruction is directly tied to our pursuit of efficiency in all things. Anyone who says that things are better now than ever is incredibly nearsighted. Things are certainly easier, for many of us, but at what expense? It is sad that there are few of us who would voluntarily give up conveniences for the good of the Earth. Only by a return to relatively inefficient lives that we have left behind and now disdain can we accomplish a beautiful symbiosis with the Earth that is the stated goal of the "green economists". It is a symbolic statement, but when possible and practical, I increasingly return to old-fashioned methods and old-fashioned thinking that reflects the value of work, resources, skills, and knowledge that are now treated as a lot of rubbish by the majority.