In reply to benknapp: Hlo! just want to explore the word 'style' with regards to climbing. And particularly relating to the spectrum of technology you allude to, i.e bolt, rusty piton, cam, helicopter.
Firstly lets go with a full spectrum of technology, but focusing on clothes. If I compare a Gore-tex clad 21st Century climber with Eric Shipton in his woollies I see one has an obvious advantage. If I compare a Tibetan monk in sandals and thin cotton gown to Eric in his woolies, again the monk is more impressive than Eric up at around twenty plus thousand feet! Lets compare the lot to someone riding in a helicopter! I find the heli-option least impressive. These different 'styles' demonstrate clearly different levels of difficulty, and so engender clearly different responses regarding how impressed I am. The level of how impressed I am with the effort required relates very clearly to the words 'better' and 'best'. (Indeed a barefoot ascent of Left Wall would be the 'best' style, but would be bettered by the 'purity' of a nude ascent, and of course certainly bettered by a one-armed ascent.)
I'll now compare the different types of some of the tech you mentioned (some of which Nick compares, in his film, admittedly perhaps not with enough explanation, but films get edited down). So, there's rusty piton, bolt, cam and helicopter. Helicopter is the most oddest one out - all the others are carried up mountains or crags by climbers, whereas the helicopter carries the climber ... well actually you couldn't call them a climber, rather they would be a passenger!
Rusty pitons are fixtures, like bolts, and very distinct from cams, which get taken away again. Bolts, like helicopters, require motors, as bolts are placed in drilled holes. To place them, pitons and cams only require the mechanical force generated by human muscles.
'Bolt' and 'helicopter' share motorisation. And 'bolt' even more than 'piton' represents infra-structure and the extension of urbanization.
The cam, although a sophisticated and factory-engineered piece of kit, nevertheless represents what the cunning climber thinks about in the valley, manufactures in the valley, and then takes away from 'civilization' up into the 'wilds' of the mountains to aid their climbing. Compare this to the bolt-ladder, and bolt belay-stations, which are forms of infrastructure and by extension urbanization: they are the things of the valley creeping up the mountain. Urban is not all bad. I love the cinema, and I like roofs! But there are many people who object to urban-sprawl. 'Bolts' represent urban sprawl. Again, sometimes the urban is needed, and some crags are great for being bolted. And I'd possibly even argue, even though I don't like it, that the train and cafe on Snowdon should stay cuz all sorts of people, elderly people for example, thus get to experience the view across Snowdonia (when its not raining!)
The issue for humans is finite resources, its all running out for us. Bullock is most afraid, perhaps a little over sensitive, but justifiably afraid of urban-sprawl. He is most afraid of the conscious of the climbing community changing to favour infrastructure and urban sprawl. Bullock uses climbing walls, he loves 'em, and admires those who run them well (so much so, he even accepts wall managers such as Iain McKenzie cuddling him!). Bullock values the urban. But he is afraid the balance will tip so that the urban over-runs the mountains.
I think, and fortunately so do others, that we should listen to Bullock yelling about sprawl! To repeat, expansion of the urban itself is not necessarily bad - but if it is not checked, and dealt with carefully then it is 'sprawl'. Is climbers' urban-sprawl being dealt with carefully? I doubt it ... but I'm hopeful, very slightly hopeful, that it might start to be ...