Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why

The author describes a tragic scenario in which several climbers died in an accident on Mount Hood in Oregon. The climbers considered Mount Hood an easy ascent and failed to make appropriate provisions for such an occurrence, but Gonzales calls this accident a normal and predictable occurrence, even inevitable when large groups of people climb along icy slopes. He blames the climber’s biases, which were based on previous experiences of surviving such risks, for giving them a false sense of security while pursuing such a climb. He claims experienced climbers encounter the worst difficulties on supposedly easy mountains, since they have the attitude that they are “slumming” and forget to be vigilant (106).

Gonzales maintains that what people call “accidents” do not come out of nowhere. He cites Charles Perrow’s book Normal Accidents, which argues that accidents are a normal byproduct of systems, and that complex solutions that involve technology tend to worsen the problem. Because people often get away with not rigorously following safety guidelines or best practices, they begin to believe these rules are not important. Inevitably, these “components and forces interact in unexpected ways, with catastrophic results” (107).

Gonzales also offers another explanation, Chaos Theory, which investigates the world’s disorder and argues that it comes from predictable “mathematical functions” that only seem chaotic because they are influenced by so many factors (110). Specifically, Gonzales points to the “Sand Pile Effect” as described by Danish scientist Per Bak. Emptying sand into an ever-bigger pile will inevitably result in some small grains of sand sliding away, which will dislodge other grains, eventually triggering a massive avalanche that completely disintegrates the pile. Gonzales argues that outdoor accidents also occur in this way, with some small incidents that seem “normal” occurring regularly, inevitably followed by one large accident that seems out of the ordinary. 

Gonzales reminisces on his own hike up Mount Hood, which he took a day after the climbers’ deaths. He ponders how the climbers considered the mountain climb an enjoyable escape that was less risky than other things they had survived and how these “goals and plans and imagination” helped convince them that the mountain could be “managed” (116). Gonzales discussed the tragedy with a member of the ski patrol team, who lamented that “the mountain is just not taken seriously” and that the top climber had been so complacent as to pull his protection, leaving himself and his friends unanchored (117).

Gonzales then describes a mental phenomenon called “risk homeostasis,” in which people tend to set a certain bar for how much risk they are willing to accept and try to keep the riskiness at that point. Consequently, “[i]f you perceive conditions as less risky, you’ll take more risk” (117). Gonzales urges the reader to be aware of their own biases and question their perceptions so they do not fall into the trap of taking on more risk than they realize.

The author points out that climbers in particular overlook dangers because they tend to focus on summiting the mountain and ignore the fact that most accidents happen upon descent. This, along with their physical and mental fatigue, causes them to let their guard down as they descend the mountain. Gonzales connects this bias and fatigue with why the Mount Hood climbers made such risky decisions before falling to their deaths. He suggests that, paradoxically, their rehearsals of climbing while roped together may have given them “faith in a faulty system” and prevented them from being more critical of their strategy (122). Gonzales reiterates that survivors avoid or survive accidents because they maintain awareness of what is really happening in their environment, rather than what they want or expect to happen.

Most mountain-climbing fatalities happen for similar reasons: climbers neglect to belay themselves using protection and climb “solo” instead, or they try to save time by taking shortcuts and descend hurriedly (125). Wilderness experts say that conditions, acts, and judgments work together “in a dynamic and synergistic sequence to generate accidents” (123). Another common mistake is people caving to peer pressure and assuming more risk than intended. Gonzales claims this is common in a variety of professions and situations, from piloting planes and ships to policing and medicine. Gonzales developed “rules for life” which include “Be here now” and “Everything takes eight times as long as it’s supposed to” to encourage himself to be present and stay aware that things may take longer than expected (127). 

Gonzales reflects on a trip to Hawaii, during which he was excited to swim in the ocean. He asked a lifeguard about the best place to swim, and was informed of the myriad dangers in the open ocean, which to him looked “inviting” (131). Without taking the precaution of consulting an expert, Gonzales would have swum too far and been taken out to sea on a rip tide. He explains that most people who drown in Hawaii are middle-aged men who think the water seems “warm and benign” and do not consider the dangers of swimming in the open ocean (132). He reiterates that people do not consider how powerfully their emotions are directing their behavior. Gonzales compares modern people to “domestic pets of a human zoo we call civilization”; in other words, the modern human is overly sheltered and unprepared for the harsh demands of nature (133). He points to the example of three hikers, also in Hawaii, who disappeared in the wilderness. A search party of over 150 people combed the mountain, causing three more people to vanish in a similar way. Gonzales claims that people often misjudge both “the scale of the places we elect to explore” and how much energy these explorations require, especially if the exploration includes periods of lostness (134).

Gonzales reiterates that people project their past experiences into the future; if something has not happened before, humans consider it impossible. Gonzales argues that people often perceive nature as stable and immovable, though conditions are constantly changing around us without our notice. While people know logically that they are mortal, it is difficult to truly accept, and Gonzales encourages the reader to consider their mortality carefully. The author points to numerous examples of nature’s immense forces taking people by surprise and killing them.

Gonzales shares an anecdote about Nick Williams, an American businessman and former Marine fighter pilot who went out skiing one Saturday, poorly dressed for the elements because he only planned to ski for a few hours. Unfortunately, a blizzard disoriented Williams, who decided to take a shortcut to what he thought was a lodge. He found himself on a massive cliff and could not navigate to any of the ski paths. He defied the odds, surviving three nights in the wilderness, and lost a few toes to hypothermia in the process. Gonzales credits Williams’s survival to his physical and mental toughness and, even more importantly, to his desire to see his son again.

Many fatalities occur in the same particularly hazardous places that some people attempt even when there are safer routes. A recreation officer on Mount Hood claimed that trying to make routes safer could paradoxically increase fatalities by giving people a false sense of security.

The author returns to his personal memories of being in Hawaii, where he struck up a friendship with the lifeguard who taught him about surfing’s spiritual origins. Gonzales also met his wife, who surfed while pregnant; he now wonders if people can begin to learn while still in utero, claiming that such learning could be one of the “most reliable” types of knowledge (146).