CRITICISING THE SYSTEM: SCIENTIFIC AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Caving in the widest sense is practised by people from different origins, having different aims. In addition, caving hasn’t exactly the same meaning in one country or in another. For instance, the Romanian Emil Racovita Institute of Speleology suggests that caving is foremost an academic activity in this country. On the contrary, in France, karstology as a science is well separated from speleology as a sport, with two different reviews that are Karstologia and Spelunca. Other countries have an intermediate point of view; for example the American NSS (National Speleological Society) holds a review named Journal of Cave and Karst Studies that presents scientific articles.
I don’t agree with the splitting of caving into several fields as in my country. The scientists who use sportive cavers’ results without entering very far or deep in caves expose themselves to the risk of using things they cannot prove or verify. This is against the principle that defines modern science and can be summarised as ‘no beliefs, only doubts.’ Reciprocally, understanding a minimal geological frame, how a cave has been created, to what constraints it is submitted and how water flows inside should be the basis of caving and not regarded as high-level science.
The cavers who aren’t interested in the scientific aspect of things are exposed to two risks. Firstly, they can miss interesting discoveries and premières by lack of understanding of geological and hydrological data. Secondly, if they use things they don’t understand very well, there is a risk to be unable to master or understand those things. In France, there is a feedback phenomenon: the scientific aspect of caving is taught to sportive cavers with the prejudice they have not enough cultural background and they have not an understanding at scientific level. In many occasions, this leads to a teaching more devoted to observation or to obtaining measurements than to interpreting things or placing them into a deep conceptual frame.
The scientific face of caving is a very good example of how fashion phenomena and politics have invaded everything. Because everybody speaks about the probable warming of climate, credits are mostly devoted to this field of research. As a result, nowadays, a majority of topics in cave research belongs to the area of sustainable development and climatic evolution. Regarding other fashions and trends, an important part of an issue of a French review has recently been devoted to ghost-rock karstification. For non-specialists, it means alteration of rocks in situ without removing the by-products, which remain inside the in-formation hollow. At least in France, karstology is more and more regarded as a kind of geography, which is rather a literary field than a hard science. Even if karstification is based upon physical and chemical processes, it is not studied using all the powerful tools of modern chemistry and physics. This scientific field is regarded as few or non-mathematical. Such an outlook strongly contrasts with the theoretical concepts that could be applied to the formation of karsts.
For a non-paid comer who has the will to do something not only in the field of sport and who has a background of theoretical physics, bad luck! I wish, however, to expose some problems I regard as especially interesting even if they are outside the ‘right’ trends. I have deeply investigated some of these problems and only brushed others when time lacked. This is always the case with another job to do seriously.
A very interesting thing deals with the concept of emergence. It can be regarded as a series of problems very similar, at another scale, to those of cosmology, origins of life and consciousness: how can (or cannot) one integrate simple ingredients to produce a higher-level system that has new properties, absent from its lower-level components? Regarding cave science, how can one integrate water, rock and energy to form the very complex and structured world of caves penetrable by man? The formation of caves is, at least qualitatively, quite well understood since a long time. However, numerous open sub-problems still remain that are not only qualitative and require a lot of literal or even numerical calculations.
For instance, in some areas, all the ingredients seem present, whereas no cave has been found. What additional ingredient, still unknown, is lacking? What parameter is not in the proper range? Or is it just a question of probability? How is it possible, regarding two similar massifs, that one contains a lot of caves and the other contains few or no caves? This problem has been partially investigated by the Belgian karstologist Yves Quinif, but a general quantitative theory remains to be done.
Several ancient theories state that conduits form only at the level of the water table. This ‘water table’ roughly corresponds to the level at which water is found if a well is bored. Several other theories state that deep conduits can exist far below the water table. Solving the question is not so obvious, for the reality is always observed in an indirect fashion. During caving, one can ramble in tubes that are ancient conduits. If they have formed by underwater corrosion, only one thing is sure: they have formed when the water table was at a higher position. During cave diving too, the only sure thing is that one dive into sumps that are below the current water table. So even if good qualitative models already exist, for instance Ford’s extended four states model, a general quantitative model is still to invent. I have investigated a two-dimensional model (Pictures 8.1 & 8.2). It gives promising results and has been published in the Speleogenesis magazine. I’m developing a three-dimensional model, but since the end of Speleogenesis as a review, it seems more difficult to publish it elsewhere.
Caves penetrable by man are long and wide-enough conduits when regarded at the present time. How has varied the size of these conduits? Is it a slow and continuous evolution from a very small size to a size penetrable by man, or is it something more sudden? How can only one or a few number of future penetrable conduits be selected among all the possible pathways that correspond to the multiple intersections of beddings, planes, joints and other discontinuities? Only partial models, or models devoted to very peculiar systems, have been developed. Moreover, these models depend upon too many empiric parameters. There exist only few attempts to reduce the number of these parameters and to gain some universality. Some models take into account the development of a single conduit from a crack subjected to different constraints but don’t take into account the evolution of numerous conduits at the whole scale of a karstic massif. Finding a theory depending upon the smallest possible number of parameters would be very interesting. A theory explaining, even roughly, how conduits evolve in size and flow rate at the scale of a whole massif would give a new point of view.
More generally, a karstic system can be regarded as a network, with pathways that can be reinforced by some positive retroactive loops or weakened by some negative retroactive loops. For instance, it is classically assumed that the wider a flow conduit is, the more it enlarges. Other systems share the feature to be a network and to embed retroactive loops. They share also the feature that a node evolves according to its position inside the network, in other words according to the number of neighbours it has. Models of brain and consciousness or systems in the field of sociology belong to this category. Looking for the common points among all these systems, finding (perhaps) a general theory or developing general tools, may be very interesting. All that deals also with SOC (self-organised criticality), as studied by the physicist Per Bak.
That which was an unconscious truth, becomes, when interpreted and defined in an object, a part of the domain of knowledge—a new weapon in the magazine of power.
—Ralph Waldo Emerson
There exist also problems that are linked neither with emergence nor with networks. On the contrary of the large-scale problems described above, these are local problems, regarding a precise place into a cave or a small part of a conduit. For instance, inside a given cave and at the present time, some hints regarding past history can be found. Sediments have been laid or removed, and some marks have been engraved by water flows (Pictures 8.3 & 8.4). The interpretation of those items as a time machine is very important. It allows to understand the past geology at the scale of a massif as well as the different states during the formation of the cave. In the case of a complex evolution, for instance many episodes corresponding to different flow rates, this is not always easy to do.
I am very interested in the following sub-problem. Water can create marks in sand (‘ripple marks’) or engrave marks (‘scallops’ or ‘flutes’) at the surface of a rock. This phenomenon is quite general. It may occur each time a fluid flows near a solid wall where something can be dissolved or transported (Picture 8.5). For example, it occurs when air flows at the surface of ice in a glacier, inside some kind of rockets, and in some kind of chemical reactors. It is more or less understood. One knows that the mark depends upon the formation of a vortex (or eddy or whirlpool if one prefers) inside itself. One knows that the size of the marks depends upon the speed of the fluid (Picture 8.6). But there are few studies about the speed of the process: how many millimetres of rock is removed each year? There are also few studies about what happens when the speed of the fluid varies. To what extent does the size of the mark vary? To what extent does it remain constant? This latter question is essential regarding cave survey; in some circumstances, variations of flow rate are perhaps not recorded by those marks.
The fact that caving is at the border of science and sport, the fact that it is practised by people from different origins, means also that one has several motivations to do caving. It is very important to me to avoid to lie to oneself as well as to other people. Sometimes, especially in newspapers, it is written that caving allows a better hydrological understanding of a massif. It is written or said that cavers contribute strongly to hydrological knowledge and to protection of water resources. This is an absolute truth only in some situations. In other situations, this is said only in order to have a good public image and to obtain authorisations needed to explore certain areas. Reversely, cavers or cave divers often add scientific data to their publications about première and exploration. Sometimes they perfectly understand what they do and are perfectly able to link both kinds of data. However, in other occasions a thorough read of their paper suggests that they absolutely don’t understand anything. It also suggests that they just try to enlarge and decorate their paper. All that mix-up well illustrates one of the features of our modern age: in order to succeed, one has to believe in one’s own lies.
I must confess that when I run on a computer complex calculations about karstic systems, I do not think of the cold or shade I feel when I dive in sumps. What is interesting is to use all the theoretical knowledge gained in doing theoretical physics in order to investigate fun systems (Picture 8.7). These systems are more available, more terrestrial and easier to observe than intergalactic space or collisions between elementary particles. One can see them with one’s own eyes, touch them, and small teamwork or solo work are still possible. Calculations can be summarised in more or less elegant formulas, and numerical simulations create often visual-coloured objects that are more or less beautiful. One must never forget the proximity between science and art; the former not only explains things but also creates new things. I am perhaps a nasty boy, but as a cave diver, I have never been interested in the sustainable development of water resources. Sustainable development is a lie when it implies that development remains possible. The first thing to do is to reduce the global population; it isn’t to find new resources in order to let it grow. What interests me is to go the farthest possible into the cave with the lightest material and to perform technical tests in order to check the material I have built by myself. Laying a guideline into a sump and improving material can be seen as a technical and scientific act as well as an artistic act. Here again, the notion of beauty is closely related to the notion of being handsome and reliable. On the contrary of consumer goods, the design of such objects is foremost internal. I will develop this notion in the chapter ‘Dealing with complex Systems’.
The ancient Greeks called the world κοσμος, beauty. Such is the constitution of all things, or such the plastic power of the human eye, that the primary forms, as the sky, the mountain, the tree, the animal, give us a delight in and for themselves; a pleasure arising from outline, color, motion, and grouping. This seems partly owing to the eye itself.
—Ralph Waldo Emerson
Outside the frame of science, caving contains philosophic problems that should be solved. Discovering new caves by means of systematic examination of wide areas and further digging has a huge cost. It takes a lot of time and needs a lot of people. Due to gas mixes and diving material, the continuation of long deep sumps takes a lot of money too. So doing caving in the same fashion than during the past century yields to a result by person or by unit of time more and more lower. It involves also more and more ordinary people involved into a whole organisation, which totally overwhelms each individuality. This is probably another feature of our modern age.
As a digression, it is worth to mention that in our modern age, all must have a value, and all must be linked to society. This is very well explained by Hannah Arendt in her book Between Past and Future, again in the chapter entitled ‘Tradition and the Modern Age’. Such a system of permanent exchanges, where nothing exists by itself and where one exists only by the virtue of exchanges, had been outlined by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. According to Karl Marx, it would lead to a radical transformation of man, who becomes the ‘socialised man’.
In my country (and perhaps in other countries), there is a trend for today’s caving to produce things, results, more and more remote from caves and sumps. In some reviews, the proceedings of meetings, political events and training sessions take more place than surveys or reflections about technical and philosophical progress. Some technical evolutions are proposed upon the basis of imaginary failures, regardless of statistical data and probabilistic analysis. As explained above, in France there exist two national reviews that are split into two distinct fields. Regarding the field of karstology, cave science is very interesting only if it mainly regards caves penetrable by man. This is a sensible trend. Some researchers in the field of karstology give lessons to cavers even if themselves aren’t true cavers! Regarding the review fully devoted to speleology, the articles must be readable by the largest possible public. As a consequence, the development of complex technical or scientific articles is trammelled. Without these kinds of articles, letting the field evolve and rendering it closer to caves and sumps is more difficult, almost impossible. Very often, the fear that some readers might misunderstand a difficult technical article and then be endangered is a pretext to refuse such articles. Safety has become a political weapon.
However, reality shows that caving and cave diving cannot be confined to things ‘understandable by everybody’. Some concepts, necessary to perform severe and engaged incursion underground, will forever remain difficult and conceptually deep. Not publishing texts about them, hiding them, widens the gap between current practice and top-level practice. I think this is rather unfair. Another big philosophical problem arises when institutions are led by people who do not understand deep concepts. This is possible, for those people have been selected according to their charisma rather than according to engineering knowledge. They think that what is good/complex for them is good/complex also for other people. So under their leadership, the practice is pruned, reduced to a shallower complexity. In addition, one might never forget that vote is not relevant for everything. For instance, neither a theorem nor the result of a series of experiments can be the object of a vote. In addition, one must never forget that a vote on persons (very frequent) isn’t a vote on actions to do (by far less frequent).
Even without speaking of politics, the ‘administration of things’ is often regarded as the most important, the core of the activities of a federation and especially the French Federation of Speleology. Nevertheless, it is allowed to have a very different opinion. One can think of the ‘administration of things’ as something very dull, narrow and boring one has to escape each time it is possible.
Escaping at international level is only a partial solution. There exist international reviews or projects more collaborative and less hierarchic, where people are more able to understand or to tolerate things that have a deep complexity. They are able to understand more difficult or deeper things. Perhaps the use of a common foreign language (often English) allows to cross the borders of narrow thoughts and narrow national languages. Nevertheless, because of the processes of representative democracy, international institutions are often led by the same category of people than national institutions, and it can lead to the same kind of problems. As explained above, I strongly regret Speleogenesis as an online review. It has had a too-short life. Now, scientific publications must be sent to other more specialised reviews.
Fulfilment in the afore-described frame is more and more difficult. Even if one focuses on exploration, doing some première in such a context means more and more discussing with people, convincing them, obtaining compromises. It means more and more doing politics, less and less being underground and solving huge moral and physical difficulties. I think that what matters is to solve complex and difficult problems. If looking for première no longer allows to find these problems, so fulfilment must no longer be tightly linked with première. Looking for première was a way of fulfilment, but at the present time, it can be a loss of resources and time. Something that doesn’t contribute to personal and moral elevation—that is just the result of an accumulation of human and material resources without fine optimisation—is no more interesting. In addition, caves to discover are, as petroleum or coal to consume, not a renewable resource. Première has also at least one negative feature, its staggering effect. The announcement of this première has often an impressive effect on other people. They are impressed or staggered. This is good for the preservation of one’s moral superiority. But one is also staggered, and many authors underline the fact that a kind of post-climax depression can happen at different scales of time.
By far, I’m not the only to think of this post-climax depression. In the chapter entitled ‘Full Circle’ of her book Climbing Free, Lynn Hill reports such a trouble after having free climbed the Nose (a well-known route on El Capitan, a big wall of North America). This is also reported by Reinhold Messner in The Seventh Grade. In a chapter entitled ‘Only Half an Hour’s Sleep’, he explains what happened to him after having solo climbed the north face of the Droites, in the massif of the Mont Blanc (France). In the chapter entitled ‘Five Climbs in a Day’, he explains that it is not usual to make twice a very severe and difficult climb one has made one time.
Even a long time after having physically and morally recovered, even with a pre-existing guideline, it is often difficult or impossible to do again the same incursion. Going out of this frame and being able to repeat several times a very engaged incursion can be an interesting aim for the caving of the twenty-first century.
Since I made my première during the autumn 2007 at the Source de l’Écoutot in the French Doubs, I have never been able to reach again the same point. The four years after this première, I encountered professional and personal difficulties. So I turned for a moment to other sumps and to climbing. But since I started again to frequent the main branch of the cave, during the four attempts I made, I never succeeded to reach again my terminus. Bad surroundings due to water flow are a possible explanation for one of those attempts. The visibility was very poor, and 300 meters before the terminus, I needed to have both hands on the guideline in order to progress and check it. I realised that once at the terminus, I could never seek the continuation and install a new guideline, so I turned back. But for the other attempts, the reason was purely moral and psychological. Either I was afraid or I lacked the warlike motivation that was needed. So even if another diver (a woman I hope) finds the continuation and makes the première, reaching again my terminus and its continuation remains a personal goal of first importance. Moreover, the Source de l’Écoutôt is one of the benchmarks where I test some gears I have made because it is a tough sump. Reaching the terminus using a rebreather instead of classical gears would be a valuable extra: if it works well here, it will be safe elsewhere.
Many other problems outside the sheer première are open and very interesting. Even if understanding these problems is out of reach of certain cavers, it is worth to precise what they can be and to develop some possible solutions.
They are foremost human problems, which can be summarised as follows:
Though each caver is free to invent his/her own solution, solo caving can be an answer. It can be a central element of fulfilment at different levels. Doing alone something that has been done only by a team is something new and interesting. To those who think that it is dangerous and are against it, the answer can be Reinhold Messner’s argument (The Seventh Grade, ‘Finger Exercises by a Potential Suicide’): even if it lacks originality, driving one’s car with passengers is more dangerous.
This is the core of ethics to precise what solo is and which are the boundaries of this concept. It does not simply mean going underground or underwater alone.
A first degree of true solo is preparing the whole operation alone and treating the data, exploiting the results alone. Bringing back results is compulsory, for it is the proof of the incursion. From the point of view of yield, solo can be regarded as an intellectual release. The solo caver is responsible for any problem he encounters, as well as for any success he gains.
Survey has a special importance. Some cavers used to say that only surveyed première is a true première. It could mean that the première belongs to who brings back the survey. It could also mean that surveying an already-discovered cave could be a substitute to the première, a kind of under-première. Such concepts, that are close to ideas of virginity and reflect a kind of machismo, belong often to a world of shallow intelligence. For a start, it is preferable to mention what the great diver Cyril Brandt said: ‘What matters is the study of the cave’. It means that the cave must be conceptualised and that this conceptualisation is a valuable goal. Caving and cave diving are more than only physical exercise, only underground sport. Surveying a cave needs more ease than doing an incursion into it. This is why it is interesting for personal improvement and elevation. From an extreme point of view, returning from a première without survey could be regarded as cowardice or as an act of cheating.
However, survey is not the only proof of an incursion. There are other possible proofs. For instance, it is possible to bring back pictures of remote parts of a sump. Strong limitations exist, which make the difference between action picture and artistic picture made near the entrance. One of them is the transparency of water, for pictures are impossible with a visibility of only few dozens of centimetres. In such conditions, a proper survey is difficult too. Another limit is the light itself. Transporting and installing alone all the gears needed to the proper lighting of a part of sump or cave is a huge operation that would erode the autonomous margins devoted to an incursion far away. Magazine pictures scarcely correspond to such incursions.
A second degree of true solo caving is, from a financial and material point of view, to be independent from any institution, club, firm or commission. This second degree is an ideal very difficult or impossible to reach. It means that caving cannot be a job, that caving results cannot be sold—even the present book—and that one can by no means be a professional caver. This brings back to the play on words written at the beginning of this book, for it can be regarded as a Battle of the Sum. From the point of view of doing interesting things, solo caving is clearly something that belongs to non-competitive caving. This is a word that has the same meaning than non-competitive mountaineering. It has a meaning very different from the sportive speleology, which, in French books, implicitly means lower-level caving.
I totally agree with Reinhold Messner’s ideas (developed in The Seventh Grade). In contrast to practising an activity for the sake of sheer première, one can practise an activity in a non-competitive fashion. This means to solve problems in a distinctive fashion, and this means applying to oneself particular rules that are important only for this person. It the milieu of mountaineering, such a non-competitive view isn’t new, for it has tempted climbers at least since the nineteenth century. For instance, several mountaineers wanted and succeeded to reach summits and make difficult climbs without guide. However, in the milieu of caving, this trend seems newer. I’m not, by far, the only to do solo caving, but it seems that not everybody realises the ethical aspect of such a practice.
Non-competitive caving means that sometimes one prefers looking for something that has not been already done than spending time and means in order to discovering new caves.
To those who say:
It is possible to answer:
The concept of conditions is very important. It has a wider meaning than simply doing all things alone. Buying by oneself the material needed corresponds to another engagement in life than borrowing it from a club or another official, for instance. From a financial point of view, one has to balance the sum of one’s whole life. The notion of collective material disappears, and strong limitations appear. The quantity of material I use, which is rapidly destroyed, is limited by the money that can be earned in non-caving activities.
Some kinds of gears are too expensive to be bought. If their absence can be balanced by making something by oneself, this is a possible new way of fulfilment. For instance, if propellers, very useful in large sumps and which allow to spare time and gas, are not available, engaging oneself in long sumps with the exclusive thrust of fins can be regarded as a valuable goal (even if it appears silly to other categories of cave divers). The milieu of mountaineering is not stubborn, and it has solved since a long time such kinds of problems. For instance, skying a summit after having being dropped by helicopter is regarded differently than skying after an ascent made without mechanised means. Earning money means to have a job and spending time to work honestly at that job. So it remains only a finished amount of time devoted to caving endeavours. Moreover, a free choice of those moments according to the forecast and the best hydrological conditions underground isn’t always possible. Eventually, the practice of caving can be regarded as the materialisation of dreams; having one’s job outside of the cave’s realm is a necessary condition in order to prevent the alteration of dreams by materialistic compromises. This ethical way has many outcomes regarding specific subjects. It is interesting to develop some of them.
Caving abroad acquires a new meaning. Some expeditions can be regarded as more or less colonialist endeavours. By ‘colonialist’, I mean looking for caves not yet explored by the natives as they are already too poor or too late to be able to explore these caves. Inside this frame, one can think of the possibility of an exchange of première against training, technical help or even money. As a native in your own country, could you accept such a thing? On the contrary, caving abroad in more developed areas or outside the frame of any exchange can be regarded as a fashion to find interesting strong constraints and limits. The amount of material one can transport by oneself is limited, and available time is limited too. The available help in case of problem is very reduced, and it is compulsory to be very careful. Sometimes being stealth is necessary; this is an interesting constraint too. Due to the limited available time, action can be performed only on the basis of partial information, and sometimes the travel does not allow an optimal fitness. This gives to any success a higher value than in France. To people who will say:
It can be replied again:
Caves penetrable by man are a non-renewable resource. Once this potential has been used up, if one wants to do something else than practising in already-known caves, two different possibilities exist. It is possible to create new caves. This is exactly what happens when digging extends over a long time and through a huge blockage. Or it is possible to sustain technical exchanges at the border of caving. On one hand, it is possible to reinvest the acquired background to the exploration of other vertical surroundings than caves. For example, artificial climbing can be interesting. On the other hand, testing new things, some of them coming outside from the cave milieu, can be very interesting. Those things can be material items or more conceptual models. An example of material item is the Dyneema. This is a thin cord with a diameter of 5.5 millimetres. It is very resistant to abrasion but very static and quite unable to bear shocks. It is already used for instance to tie together two anchors. It is possible to use it to abseil, and many canyoneers do that. But at the present time, there exists no reliable, quick and easy solution to ascend on a single strand of Dyneema. The main problem is not the prevention of shocks that could break it. A correct equipment with or without Dyneema must be designed to avoid any shock. While people are paralysed with questions such as ‘Will single-strand Dyneema be enough resistant to shocks?’ the main problem is elsewhere. Classical ascending gears fail on Dyneema and tear it. Dyneema is expensive. It could become cheaper only if the demand increases. Developing multipurpose reliable gears would be of the highest interest. It would allow to use the thickest ropes at the entrance of a cave, thinner ropes few hundred metres below and finally Dyneema at the deepest level or for short steps, when something light spares many efforts and pains. The exclusive use of Dyneema could be a fine solution for a quick solo engagement in a deep vertical cave and to go beyond the limit of -300 metres. Otherwise, round-trips for carrying other kit bags and several successive engagements are needed.
There already exists a technique that avoids using a lot of ropes. A rope is used to abseil, and a thin cord is in place of that rope. This cord is used to re-install the rope before ascending. But regarding guidelines, fractionation and deviations, this technique is quite restricted. The risk of falling is not very important, but there is a risk for the cord to fail. Such a situation would lead to be trapped inside the cave and waiting for external help. This isn’t acceptable.
In the field of cave diving, decompression models (the theories that indicate the depth and the length of decompression stops) are an example of conceptual model with very material and vital results. In sumps, things have still to be improved. Decompression and decompression sickness have been a main subject for military and civilian studies during the past century. At that time, one had to improve the safety of commercial and military diving (for example in order to rescue submarines and to clear off mines). This scientific research has reached a culmination point with the saturation deep diving. Mixes of helium, hydrogen and oxygen were breathed by divers whose dives lasted several weeks. At the present time, robots are preferred for deep interventions. So decompression research has now gone down; what has been found is enough for the present purposes of engineers and doctors. Hence, the only remaining field where important decompressions are unavoidable is cave diving. Such decompressions have to be optimised in order to reach a maximal safety and a minimal duration. However, a majority of cave divers use diving computers and decompression software that are opaque. The ‘models’ (Bühlmann, Workman etc being the keywords) embedded inside are based on empiric studies. Improving them by a statistical survey of the whole set of all engaged dives made by all cave divers would be a very valuable collective project. One can regret that communities of cave divers seem to be less interested by such an endeavour than by blinking blind software.
I have developed a new model, freely available on my internet site, that reduces the dozens of empirical parameters of previous models to only two parameters. Since 2009, and after a less-refined model, I exclusively used this one to reduce the length and to improve the safety level of all the decompressions I had to do.
Ethics and what kind of fulfilment can be reached, what resources can be used, will always be controversial. As pointed out, for instance, by Lynn Hill (Climbing Free, ‘Heading East’), when you do something new, suddenly all that pre-existed seems narrow, rigid or dull. You are in a new learning process that allows you to go farther. At the same time, you have to face too-‘conservative’ people who find you guilty for failing to respect the old principles.