I've never really understood the criticism that climbing is inherently selfish, since it could equally be argued about virtually any other hobby or sport. Is gardening selfish?

We Judge Choices We Wouldn't Make

There's a funny defensiveness that kicks in when someone questions whether your hobby is "worth it." Climbing gets this particular scrutiny—partly because the risks are visible, partly because it looks solitary. But Honnold's point cuts through that: almost every hobby exists primarily for the person doing it. Gardening, painting, running marathons, collecting vinyl records—they all involve time and resources spent on something that's ultimately for you. If that's selfish, then selfishness is just being human.

The real tension isn't about whether climbing is selfish. It's about how we judge different ways of spending a life. We're more comfortable with hobbies that produce something tangible (vegetables, art, fitness) or that fit neatly into weekend schedules. Climbing can look reckless because the "product" is just an experience—and a dangerous one. But that same invisibility applies to plenty of other pursuits we don't question. Maybe the criticism says less about climbing and more about our discomfort with people making deliberate choices we wouldn't make ourselves.

The harder question isn't whether climbing is selfish. It's whether you're honest about why you're doing it, and whether you've made peace with that choice.