I was reading a another article about this ascent yesterday and they brought up a great point. Prior to Roger Bannister running the 1st sub 4 minute mile it was thought to be impossible and beyond a humans capabilities. Once that barrier fell many more quickly pushed through it. There is something to someone moving the bar of what is possible. As a species we are incredible in our abilities and resolve to continually push ourselves.

In the case of the 4 minute mile, I assume lots of runners were training and were reasonably close, and of course someone has to be the first. I don't know if it can be shown that the first 4 minute mile inspired a bunch of other people to follow suit so quickly.

Of course it should be taught -- that doesn't mean everyone ought to try ridiculously dangerous feats like Alex did. But the practices that allowed him to do so are worthwhile nonetheless.

Maybe we're operating under two different definitions of "taught" here. You're using "taught", I think, in the sense of giving someone an "impressive feats in the history of climbing" lecture. Which, sure, why not.

The parent seems to be using "taught" in more the sense that a master teaches an apprentice: giving you the skills, yes, but also putting you in that same situation, or encouraging you to participate in such a climb. Like, picture a skydiving instructor, only they're a "free-solo this particular mountain" instructor. They're giving you instruction and practice with the implicit goal of doing this dangerous thing at the end, and with the implicit suggestion that the course will be all you need to be fully prepared to do the thing at the end, with little risk.

Such "teaching" would be very unlikely to succeed; it would more-often-than-not just kill people.

I'm a swimmer. I'd like someone to teach me how to have huge hands and feet like Michael Phelps so I can swim like him.

Are you sure he was coming down?

Had to read the relevant paragraph again. He was going up. Thanks.