Even using gear from 30-40 years ago, it is possible to climb with relative safety, the new gear is mainly only an incremental improvement in safety.
That's not to say that I would happily take a fall on older equipment, just that the main element of danger is generally not the equipment but the surrounding environment.
Sure 30 to 40 years ago (1980-1990) the equipment was good, and thats about when the explosion in free climbing ability really got going. The first 5.13 (Alex's Free Solo route Freerider has a 13a pitch) was done in 77 and the first 5.14 in 85. [1] Not coincidentally, the modern cam came into use in the late 70s. [2] Good climbing shoes came in the 80s too. Sport climbing, the use of bolts (technology) to safely climb faces that weren't previously protectable also started in the early 80s. So of course you wouldn't mind climbing on 30-40 year old climbing technology.
Normal gear has been pretty stable since then and the limits of the sport have continued to grow, but that doesnt mean its not because of technology. The boom we are in now has been due to another bit of technology, the indoor climbing gym. They started in earnest in the 90s and have allowed a new level of training.
[1] https://web.stanford.edu/~clint/yos/hard.htm
[2] https://www.climbing.com/news/10-things-you-didnt-know-about...
But I guess you mean what kind of falls am I taking on dynamic rope that I wouldn't want to take on static rope? Its not about distance, its about fall factor [1]. Fall factor 2 falls are possible on multi pitch routes. Doing that on a static rope would really screw you up even if it didn't kill you. It could also easily shock load your anchor gear enough to break or pull it out, killing you and your belayer.
[1] https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/skills/fall_factors_expl...
Getting to a specific point on the face of El Cap used to be a weeks-long endeavor in itself, pushing everyone to their physical and technological limits. The fact that he was able to go for day-trips to any point on the wall to practice is a testament to all the technology involved.
He used modern ropes, hauling gear, etc, to essentially turn the route into a gym that he could practice on. He used modern climbing holds to re-create the dyno problem so he could practice at home. He literally memorized the entire sequence of moves.
It would be impossible to learn a route to the level that it requires to ascend it in 4 hours without modern technology. Imagine if practicing the dyno problem required having to fund and set up a 47 day expedition to reach it.
Regardless, the 80s was the inception of most modern climbing gear sure; but the intermediate years were not only refinements but improvements through the culture assimilating that gear to the point of maximum utility - much the same could be said about personal computing, although the technological advances are larger, much of the advances are cultural, learning how to best utilise it.
The gym is, itself, a technology that has pushed the envelope on climbing. When I was learning in the 90s there was no gym where I was and if I wanted to practice I had to climb buildings. It's much easier now to find good places to work out climbing technique without traveling to the cliff.
Yes, but isn't that also roughly when modern sport climbing started?
Nylon ropes for climbing were introduced about 55y ago, though, I don't know when they became wide spread. Same for modern harness, modern bolts and quick draws. So your ~40y ago might be roughly correct.
Modern sport climbing started, I would argue, around that time. For instance, Red Pointing was popularized in the 70ties [2].
Also interesting is, that Phoenix, the first 7c+, the grade of the route in the Free Solo movie, was climbed in 1977 [3,4] and first free soloed in 2011 (also by Honold).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernmantle_rope [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redpoint_(climbing) [3] https://www.emontana.cz/climbing-milestones-from-6a-to-9c/
Using gear from, say, 45 years ago you would have mainly hexes, tricams, and nuts. Would you climb as hard then?
The author is largely trying to sell exceptionalism. That everything will be fine with generic improvements. Yet, of course that isn't true. Both state of technology and the economy is probably better than ever yet deliver less and less value. Chances are people like Alex Honnold did it despite of the policies of this economist.
> And now, the technology of the internet. Each new idea in rock climbing is accessible quickly all over the world. Without that large group of interested people, this communal knowledge would not have advanced so far. [The Article]
> After a year, he dropped out of Berkeley and spent time living at home and driving around California to go climbing. "I'd wound up with my mom's old minivan, and that was my base," he said. "I'd use it to drive to Joshua Tree to climb or I'd drive to LA to see my girlfriend. My orbit was tiny and really cheap. I destroyed that van fairly quickly; it died on me one day, and for the next year I lived just on my bicycle and in a tent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Honnold
On second thought I think you are correct, it should detract. And it's important my example only be seen within the context of the entire climbing culture, not as an alternative to the authors causal choice. Many things, individual pieces of technology, social environment and cultural inertia have brought the culture to where it is today - it cannot be attributed to any single thing or event.
I think there is something about human psychology that makes people commonly gravitate towards this type of thinking, like in a myth or fairytale... some sensitive dependence, a key event that changed it all! or a single piece of technology to change it all etc etc. It makes for exciting stories and makes it easy to explain things (wrongly), but it's rarely the truth.
I don't think the author intended the piece to be "an explanation" so much as an observation. I think that is fine, and there isn't much point in generalizing this observation a human tendency towards sloppy thinking.
The invention of the sampler created a huge amount of value. But mainly by a handful of companies and music scenes. If you wasn't for Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, London, Bristol or wherever else the change would have been marginal. Just like climbing wouldn't necessarily improve without places like Yosemite.
You can even go further and say that it isn't just specific groups that make progress, but that they define progress itself. There isn't much as such saying that free soloing in Yosemite is what progress is. Or even that climbing is worth progressing.
There also can't be many who believe that technology haven't made e.g. trains significantly better in past decades. Yet, China now have much more advanced trains than the US which is arguably better at technology. That is presumably because China is building boats rather than praising the tide.
Chronology and narrative are definitely natural ways that humans frame the world - one of the many instinctive faults in our cognition. Such a simple view of the “infinite now” is easily hijacked in marketing, politics, etc.
Only if Alex has never used a modern climbing rope in his life is my point invalid (I know he has). It's also important to understand that many of other pieces of climbing technology help in learning and developing the skill for everyone, not a single one, ropes are just an example.
Take just a single aspect of the gear - climbing rope, modern rope is a technological wonder, light, super strong and extremely dynamic, it's part of what makes it possible to push yourself to the limit and repeatedly fall off routes safely, with zero injury. After a certain point you cannot improve in climbing without pushing beyond your limits and failing, modern technology allows you to push further and further and survive and retain your skills, and this is a significant part of why the pure climbing skill of climbers today is so advanced.
The author has made the same observation but ignoring climbing technology and focusing on internet etc for spread of knowledge - but there are many skills that do not survive conceptualization and communication in tact, for those, you need specialist technology to advance your learning beyond the basics.
Go back 80 years, you will find weak, heavy hemp rope, rope harnesses that will probably kill you, and people literally carried rocks as gear, shoving them in cracks with the rope behind them. It's not hard to see how limiting this is in learning the skill, as you move forward in time gear becomes more advanced but still very heavy.