Haha

Looking at my own experience, I'd agree that my journal papers don't *directly* make the world a better place. I do get to do a fair bit of real-world-impact work though, like consult on sustainable transport systems - which sounds suspiciously commercial doesn't it? But I'm only in that position because academia let me build up a base of techniques and software that none of the commercial operators saw a business case for 10 years ago. (And also, because I've built some credibility based on those papers).

> What happens in academia (when they not partner with one of these companies) is laughable

Then again, what happens in industry (if there isn't at least a medium term path to financial gain) is non-existent. And some of us think there just might be other worthwhile things for humanity besides money.

This is the one thing that stood out to me too. The other stats on this graphic are harder to take any conclusion from as you don't know participation rates in each activity (e.g. rock, ice, rappel) or experience level, but you do know for sure that what goes up must come down.

And yes it goes against accepted wisdom doesn't it, which is interesting. Maybe the old cliche about descents originates in other areas e.g. Alps (where afternoon thunderstorms/avalanche is a common risk), Scotland? Or from different activities e.g. hiking? Also I wonder if it looks different if you compute risk per hour of ascent/descent?

Always good to ask this sort of question.