I suppose one of the issues is not so much whether the activity is strictly necessary (as that would disqualify a lot of what makes life worthwhile for many people), but what benefits free soloing has over climbing with a rope. Is it analogous to free diving vs. diving with a tank? I’ve done both and found free diving much more liberating and a distinct enough experience that is basically a different sport (you’re much more mobile, you can change depth quicker, you feel much more connected to the water etc.). On the other hand, if the ropes don’t really get in the way of the experience much, it could be analogous to downhill mountain biking without a helmet. It could be slightly more uncomfortable and slower with all the gear, but safety equipment is important and sponsoring a guy who wants to bike down technically challenging mountains fast without it is pretty irresponsible. I guess it’s somewhere along the scale (and free diving itself is pretty risky, so that’s not a simple question either).
How hard would it be to hang a rope from the top of the mountain which was loose enough not to support you in any way while climbing, but would catch you if you fell (in the same way that a free diver would have supporting divers with tanks there in case they got into trouble)? If it’s just the adrenaline rush from the risk of dying, this is a better sport than many as you’re unlikely to kill anyone else if you fail. Still, corporate sponsorship does legitimize the activity somewhat, which could put others at risk.
