It's skill rather than bravery. Rick Stanton and John Volanthen were the divers who first made contact with the missing boys. They are both hugely experienced cave divers and cave rescue divers; as a team, they have broken multiple records in depth and distance. This was a difficult and complex diving operation, but that's business as usual for divers of this calibre.

Bravery is fundamentally incompatible with cave diving - if you're taking risks in such a hostile environment, you won't survive. What keeps you alive in an underwater cave is training, caution and meticulous attention to detail.

https://youtu.be/qNX5eo2Ja1g

I fundamentally agree with where you are going, but like another responder, I think that we have different understandings of the word "bravery." Hollywood's idea of "bravery" is really recklessness. And that is absolutely incompatible with cave diving, as it is with racing automobiles, fast and light alpine climbing, and other activities where training and judgment keep you alive.

But as this is not a Hollywood movie, we can use the proper definition:

  > Courage (also called bravery or valour) is the choice and willingness
  > to confront agony, pain, danger, uncertainty, or intimidation.
  > Physical courage is bravery in the face of physical pain, hardship,
  > death or threat of death, while moral courage is the ability to act
  > rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal,
  > discouragement, or personal loss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage

Cave divers are absolutely courageous. And brave. They just aren't reckless. Or foolhardy. To borrow a phrase from mountaineering:

"There are old cave divers. And bold cave divers. But no old and bold cave divers."

It seems to me that the "Hollywood bravery" you nicely describe really is bravery - Oxford Dictionaries says the word comes from French braverie or Italian braveria (boldness), based on Latin barbarus (c.f. barbarous). Alternatively it may be from bravo (wild, savage).

Courage on the other hand comes from Old French corage, from Latin cor (heart).

I think based on this the divers are courageous, not brave.

It's true that the word comes from those roots, but the Oxford dictionary you cite says plainly that the definition of the word as it is used today is:

  > Courageous behaviour or character.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bravery

Just as long as we all agree that cave diving is not about being that ridiculous Hollywood stereotype dude who deliberately breaks all the rules for no damn reason and it works out because he broke all the rules for no damn reason.

I was agreeing with you. You wrote yourself that modern usage is synonymous, so I thought it would be interesting to look at the etymology too.

For the record the full OED favours the latter root for bravery (bravo < Old Italian braido, brado (wild, savage)). Strange they don't say the same thing.

Bravery is not fundamentally incompatible with cave diving: it’s a hard requirement.

People who simply aren’t brave just don’t go cave diving.

That’s not to say that skill and consideration aren’t very important, but those guys are still both brave.

Bravery is over-rated. It's a poor substitute for skill, experience and professionalism. I say this not to diminish the efforts of these divers, but to praise them fully.

Rock climbers drag themselves up a rock face with their bare hands, using a rope to catch them if they fall. Cavers drag themselves up a rope, because avoiding a fall is better than arresting a fall. That's the fundamental difference in culture and attitude between cavers and participants in "extreme sports".

Cavers go into a hazardous environment, but they mitigate those hazards through meticulous planning and preparation. They don't see their activities as inherently dangerous, but technically demanding. If you're taking risks in a cave, you're foolish rather than brave - you're working beyond the limits of your skill and experience.

Well, I am not a caver, but a climber, but know some, who are both. I don't think the difference you describe, exists. Both are activitys which can be very dangerous, but usually those who do it, are smart, because otherwise they would not be alive anymore. I started climbing, beeing not smart. But very soon I started getting smart, because I realised, otherwise I would stop beeing at all or end up paralized.

But there still remains a risk. Just like traffic is dangerous. Also, the thing is, doing the same, safe thing again and again, is boring. You want new experiences, new challenges. Wheter it be a new mountain, or a new cave. But with experience and beeing smart, you can do it quite safely, because you know your limits and the enviroment. But it is never 100% safe. Big rocks can come loose and hit or trap you, or water can come from channels you don't know about. This is life, you can't plan for all events.

See, no matter how skilled and careful you are, some necessary activities are more dangerous than watching paint dry. And courage/bravery is what motivates you to tackle these activities, in spite of your knowledge of their inherent danger.

Yes, skill is required, but actually skill is associated with courage; it is the skill that enables you to assess just how dangerous the activity might be, but it is courage that motivates you to undertake it, in spite of your knowing that no amount of skill can make it every-day-level safe

This whole argument ranks as one of the silliest things I've ever seen.

No kidding. You can be as prepared as they come and as fit as they come and still face a dangerous situation knowing that someone else's life is on the line going in to risk your own. If that does not qualify as brave I don't know what does.

> Rock climbers drag themselves up a rock face with their bare hands, using a rope to catch them if they fall. Cavers drag themselves up a rope, because avoiding a fall is better than arresting a fall. That's the fundamental difference in culture and attitude between cavers and participants in "extreme sports".

I completely disagree. I am a climber, I climb sports, trad and free-solo. Trad requires the most skill in evaluating risk and coping with and rationalising fear (my definition of bravery; conversely doing dangerous things without fear or understanding is not bravery, it's stupidity).

When you place gear on a route you are constantly assessing the capability of the system which affects your trust in falling on it, because not all routes have the same natural quantity, quality or distribution of protection... Bravery comes in all kinds of forms depending on the exact combination of gear and fall potential (what you are falling into), but an obviously valid type of bravery which is easiest to explain here is dealing with _irrational_ fear when you have the experience and skill to know that the system works but has a big fall potential: e.g you have completely solid gear well distributed up the bottom half of a pitch on a sheer or overhanging face with good fall potential, but a hard run-out stretch above with no gear (lets say 1/4 of the bottom half and about 6 meters above protection to make it scary but no groundfall potential), this is safe to fall on, but you will be scared and it will take bravery and experience (experience of how the gear works and knowing how much you can trust it, experience of falling and knowing how to react and what to expect from such a fall).

A more realistic and interesting scenarios are when there is some significant amount of risk, innate fear is very useful here to guide you to the seriousness of a situation, but you need the skill and experience to separate it from the irrational and then manage the "rational" part by responding to it but not letting it control you.

> Cavers go into a hazardous environment, but they mitigate those hazards through meticulous planning and preparation. They don't see their activities as inherently dangerous, but technically demanding. If you're taking risks in a cave, you're foolish rather than brave - you're working beyond the limits of your skill and experience.

I'm not a caver but I doubt any of the cavers involved in this dive would agree that "They don't see their activities as inherently dangerous". There _are_ inherent dangers with this dive, experience and skill allows you to mitigate and manage it and respond to dangers in the best way possible, but there will always be some amount of risk you cannot eradicate, this is where bravery has it's place, it's not about being fearless, it's about being in control and understanding and accepting the potential outcomes.

I will just leave this here for your reflection:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/05/asia/thai-cave-diver-intl...

What's astounding is that they barely managed to scrape by with the amount of ration that was left, and the first thing the boys asked for after contact was for food and fresh water -- cannot imagine how ravenous those young lads must've been. [0]

Also, just a reminder -- they're still not out yet. Thailand's armed forces are still at work trying to figure out a way to get the boys out, given how deep inside the cave they're stuck (more than a kilometer inside). News reports suggest the team and its coach would be getting months' worth of supplies and diving lesson in case water level rises. Very dramatic. [0]

[0] https://www.dw.com/en/thailand-boys-soccer-team-lost-in-cave...

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/02/twelve-children-...

>Very dramatic.

Indeed. Reminds me of the Chilean mining incident 8 years ago which had many parallels to the one in Thailand.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Copiap%C3%B3_mining_acc...

That's really not so. Cave diving has well established protocols for safe navigation, gas reserves, entanglement management, and so on. There's no way they'd have gone significantly outside those protocols. Those brits are highly experienced expedition cave divers, and undoubtedly pushed it further than a weekend warrior like me would do. But they really wouldn't have been dicing with death, as it were.

How do you feel about this comment now that one of the rescue divers has died?

Not one of the Brits as far as I can tell but an ex navy seal.

Given that I'm sitting at home watching TV - and they're all busting their asses off in the cave - it's hard to discuss this without being disrespectful to them - which I certainly don't want to be. But anyway...

Looking at some of the photos, lots of the gear they are wearing is ordinary recreational gear - nothing like what an experienced cave diver would use. So it raises the question, in my mind, as to whether their navy seals actually do have any formal training in advanced cave diving. Combat diving is unlikely to be the same thing.

So the very unfortunate incident might actually support my previous comment, not contradict it. Cave diving is very dangerous to the untrained or improperly equipped. But proper training and equipment can mitigate those dangers. The two brits would not have been wearing anything like the kind of gear in the photos :-(

Again, kudos to the people on the spot, doing their best.

You realize you are making a 'no real cave diver' argument now?

For their sake I hope nothing happens to those British guys, but if it does you'd better find a quiet spot somewhere.

For some background: the diver that died ran out of oxygen after leaving the maximum of oxygen in the cave (where it is dropping).

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44734385

Try to follow along.

You: the two Brits were risking their lives.

Me: Not really, they'd have been following standard cave diving safety protocols.

You (effectively): Well, a Navy Seal just died, so that proves that it's dangerous.

Me: There's evidence that the Navy Seals weren't trained cave divers - they certainly didn't seem to be equipped as such - so all it proves is that cave diving is dangerous to those without specific training and/or proper equipment - navy seals or otherwise.

You: you'll change your tune if one of the brits dies!

W-T-F?

Here's a short list of how the diving equipment in some of the photos is absolutely noncompliant with proper cave diving equipment. This implies to me that they are not trained cave divers, and consequently, the risks they unknowingly took were enormously greater than the risks the two brits took:

(1) Single tanks! Fine in recreational diving, because if something goes wrong with your air supply (tank valve fails, hose bursts, regulator falls apart, whatever), you can go to your buddy for air, or at worst, bolt to the surface. No good in cave diving, where there isn't any air at the surface, and your buddy might be 20 meters away at the other end of a tight restriction. So all cave divers use twin tanks. We also follow gas management rules designed to let us survive the following two scenarios: (a) At the point of maximum penetration, you get separated from your buddy, and simultaneously, one of your two tanks completely fails; and (b) at the point of maximum penetration, you're still with your buddy, but both of your (or his) two tanks fail. Diving on a single tank is fundamentally noncompliant with all those standard safety protocols.

(2) Hoses curving out around their heads. These are common in recreational diving, but a serious entanglement hazard in cave diving. Cave divers route all their hoses tight-in, to reduce entanglement risks. This is especially important in low or no visibility diving. No properly trained cave diver would leave the house with hose routing like that in some of those photos. Even if an experienced cave diver was forced to use that gear by circumstance or in a dire emergency, she'd fix that up before she got in the water.

(3) K-valves! The top of each tank has a valve, onto which you attach the first stage pressure reduction regulator. Those valves come in two styles: K-valves, and DIN valves. Each style has a rubber O-ring to seal the regulator onto the valve. With K-valves, the O-ring can squeeze out, causing the attachment to fail. That's rare, but can happen. Bad luck if you're a kilometre into the cave - on a single tank - with your buddy at the other end of the restriction!! With DIN valves, the O-ring is trapped entirely within the valve body, so it can't pop out. For that reason, few if any properly trained cave divers would use K-valves.

(4) Funky hand held torches! They probably throw a nice wide beam, which is good for recreational dives. But cave divers need narrow beams (to cut through the murk, and facilitate signalling); with multi-hour durations, and hands-free attachments so you can use that hand for other tasks.

In summary, someone who is an experienced brain surgeon, gets into a Formula One car, prangs it, and kills himself. To me, that doesn't say much about the safety of properly trained and qualified Formula One drivers.

But you say that the death of a person, who may have had zero formal training in cave diving, says something about the safety risks the two brits took? Perhaos two of the most experienced expedition cave divers in the world?

I think you do not understand the issues. I don't intend to reply again.

No, I think you let your knowledge of cave diving cloud your vision: this is dangerous, and to enter that situation willingly is brave.

You can make it sound like it isn't by hauling in everything and the kitchen sink in terms of technology but that does not change the ground rules.

In the meantime, with all your knowledge and background you're armchair quarterbacking a rescue operation that is most likely doing what can be done given the tools at hand.

So the people that are doing this are doing it because they feel they have to, because they feel the lives of those kids matter to them even if they have only potential downside for themselves.

That we are even having this discussion is beyond bizarre.

You said the brits were risking their lives. I said they weren't, at least to the extent that you believed - and explained why in exhaustive detail. But you disagree, based on qualifications and experience that could roughly be described as: zero. I'll speak to doctors Dunning & Kruger and see if they can fit you in next week for a chat.

Please don't do flamewars on HN, and especially please don't be uncivil and personally nasty.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: it looks like you've been making a habit of being uncivil to other commenters on HN (for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17435527). We ban accounts that can't or won't stop doing this, so would you please not do it anymore?

Apparently you don't read replies to your posts. So I'll email this as well as posting it here for the record. I have automatic copyright to all the posts that I've made to this forum. I now request you to delete all those posts, or at least edit them all to "XXX" (or similar), by close of business on Friday 20 July your time. If that does not occur, I'll engage local US representation to pursue that issue on my behalf. Thanks in anticipation

Obviously we have different ideas about what constitutes intelligent argument. Please delete my account. If you need a formal request to that effect, say here how to submit that.

I have a weird phobia where I'm afraid of caves - the very idea of caving in small caves where people wriggle through has always terrified me and as for cave diving....

I could not do what they have done - not if my life depended on it....

Personally, I think they deserve the very highest honours we can give them as a country.

It's not that weird, caves are dangerous! A weird phobia would be if you were terrified of grass or mirrors.

That's not a weird phobia by any means. That's very common and it's called claustrophobia.

I'm not afraid of small enclosed spaces (e.g. in a building) - I'm afraid of caves :-)

I'm no psychologist but I think claustrophobia can express itself in different ways in different people - if it's the enclosed spaces in caves that make you fearful/anxious, it's a claustrophobic reaction. You wouldn't necessarily also have to have the same reaction in e.g. an elevator.

> claustrophobia can express itself in different ways

Too right. I'm a reasonably experienced cave diver, and regularly dive in a system of 11km of intersecting fully-underwater tunnels, with the single entry/exit being a small pond, a few feet across, in a small, underground air-filled cave. I'd typically go 700-800 meters out, with a dozen navigational decisions along the way (left? right? straight ahead?), then have to reverse all that to get back out. But a few years ago I had an MRI, where you're wheeled into a narrow metal tube, on your back, with your arms pinned to your sides, with the tube an inch away from your face. Result: GET ME OUT!! GET ME OUT!! I had to be wheeled back out & take a break, before I could grit my teeth and try again. I absolutely hated it. I told them I was an active cave diver, but I don't think they believed me :-)

My personal experience is that I never experienced claustrophobia in normal conditions (lifts, tunnels) but I did while scuba diving in the dark.

There are degrees to these phobias, of course. One can find a four story roof acceptable but a ten story roof terrifying. Or a speech in front of twenty easy but one in front of 1000 paralyzing.

Scope doesn't change the phobia.

Of course. Caves aren't designed by people for people, so there are surprises there.

I haven't thought that it's a big deal until actually having to lead into a pretty tight passage without prior information about it.

Cavephobia! ;-)

(as others point out, it's probably the same)

I've always wondered this: is it appropriate to call fears of legitimately dangerous things "phobias"? I don't like being close to the edge of deadly tall cliffs; am I scared of heights or are cliffs just dangerous?

My feeling also - look up the concept "l'appel du void", finally explained my reactions to high open places.

Although I still don't like being in the high floors of buildings - those Dubai towers give me the honest to god creeps.

I would imagine its based on how reasonable the fear is; I have a (minor) fear of heights that activates regardless of how safe an environment I'm in. If I'm standing precariously on a rooftop, or just standing idly on a well-secured ladder, the fear is the same (given the same height). In my case, I can still operate without much trouble (it remains there, but I can ignore it), but if it were debilitating, I think it certainly makes sense to refer to it as a phobia.

Not just a fear, but an unreasonable fear, that limits your ability to operate.

I think a non-phobia would be acknowledging that the danger exists, but also acknowledging its risk (according to the safety of your environment), and your fear rises accordingly (linearly?).

Have you read about ted the caver?