14 ms·

Sherpa: They Die, We Go Home

180 points by jstreebin 11y ago

collyw 11y ago
“We’d like to go home to our families, but the Sherpas are worried that if we cancel the expedition we will not get paid. We are willing to continue.” Capitalism in its purest form.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- AustinG08 11y ago
  wut? seems more like an extreme form to me.
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    Genuinely curious: What is "extreme" capitalism? How does it differ from "pure" capitalism, in this example?
    - mfoy_ 11y ago
      It depends, if you think 100% pure unadulterated capitalism is a good thing, then "pure" is "good". If you think capitalism needs some checks and bounds then "pure" is "bad". In the former case, "extreme capitalism" and "pure capitalism" may be two different things. In the latter, they are synonymous. Essentially... depends on your point of view.
      - jdmichal 11y ago
        I still fail to see the difference. You seem to be suggesting that "extreme" is being used as a bad replacement for "against my moral views"? That is, that "pure" capitalism is "extreme" capitalism if and when "pure" capitalism is "bad"? What would qualify as "extreme" capitalism in the former?
        davnn 11y ago
        Did I really just read that discussion? Have to stop wasting time on HN.
    - AustinG08 11y ago
      In this example? I don't know, maybe this is what capitalism looks like in Nepal, but I've never been so I have no idea. All I know is my paycheck isn't drenched in blood, sweat, and tears, which to be clear, I am very grateful for.
      - jdmichal 11y ago
        You said it seems like an "extreme" form. Now you don't know what that means? I don't mean to seem confrontational; I simply didn't and still don't understand your comment. So far my guess is that, as hinted in this and another response [0], that "extreme" is being used as a euphemism for "things I morally disagree with". Which, to me, does not make it any less "pure", but is rather your judgement on what "pure" capitalism is. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11376801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11376801
        AustinG08 11y ago
        Well capitalism is defined as: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." I don't see how this tragic event is a pure form of anything except tragedy.
        jdmichal 11y ago
        A tragic event happened. The Sherpa valued going home to mourn, and also valued being paid. I believe that collyw was suggesting that in "pure" capitalism, payment wouldn't occur unless services are rendered. So the ideas of "going home to mourn" and "being paid" would be incompatible. The result as stated was that "being paid" was considered to be of higher value, and thus they would continue. This is capitalism, because the Sherpa were privately allocating their capital (in this case, themselves and their skills) to what they considered the most valuable pursuit at the moment. I don't make any value judgements in the above, except perhaps in the first sentence. It's simply my interpretation of the comment, and how the quote was representing "pure" capitalism in my understanding. I think by now you have sufficiently, if indirectly, answered my question of what you meant by "extreme". It seems like I was probably correct in my guess.
- omonra 11y ago
  Imho it ultimately comes down to whether the clients will demand their money back. If they don't - I don't see why operators would even mind. But if they do - the operators will have to pay costs (permits, sherpas, etc) while having no revenue.
  - takk309 11y ago
    Most people that climb Everest take out insurance that protects them from a cancellation of their trip. It is the insurance companies that, in turn, refuse payment to the Sherpa.
    - chimeracoder 11y ago
      > Most people that climb Everest take out insurance that protects them from a cancellation of their trip. It is the insurance companies that, in turn, refuse payment to the Sherpa. That can't be the full story, though. Because the obvious answer to that is that the Sherpa mountaineers should purchase insurance against cancellation of bookings (this is quite common for tourist attractions in more developed economies). Underwriting this insurance would be quite easy, because the people who underwrite the insurance policies for the tourist climbers should be quite happy to underwrite policies for the Sherpa mountaineers as well.
      - takk309 11y ago
        You raise a very good point about the Sherpa needing to have insurance against a failed expedition. Sadly, they rarely even have life insurance. An article from Rock and Ice cites a death benefit of $4,600 in 2013.[1] [1] http://www.rockandice.com/lates-news/exploitation-everest-sherpas-no-longer-willing-to-grin-and-bear-it http://www.rockandice.com/lates-news/exploitation-everest-sh...
        drzaiusapelord 11y ago
        The GDP per capita in Nepal is $700. So $4,600 is 6.5 years of wages. That's like someone in the west who makes $100,000 a year having a $650,000 life insurance. Which is a whole hell of a lot more than the one my employer offers.
- zeveb 11y ago
  Were it not for capitalism, they'd be living in extreme poverty, scratching out a marginal existence on the borders of the world. Because of capitalism, they are far better off than they would be. Capitalism at its finest.
  - shimon 11y ago
    Assuming the Sherpas aren't forced into this line of work, then you're right - they're choosing it over the alternatives because it's a better option for them. That doesn't mean that it's ethical for visitors to a country to enjoy a sport wherein they pay to transfer risk of death away from themselves and onto less advantaged local people. I'm not against this type of deal in principle - it's vital to the existence of institutions like EMS and the military - but when the whole thing exists so that megalomaniacs can tick off another box on the "hard things I've achieved" list, there is a real question of justice. Most people who love capitalism might still draw the line at some types of transactions -- maybe your line is at selling organs or child prostitution, but it probably exists somewhere.
    - chc 11y ago
      > Assuming the Sherpas aren't forced into this line of work, then you're right - they're choosing it over the alternatives because it's a better option for them > That doesn't mean that it's ethical for visitors to a country to enjoy a sport wherein they pay to transfer risk of death away from themselves and onto less advantaged local people. I have trouble seeing how it's more ethical to remove the choice from their hands and force them to do things that they demonstrably would rather not do.
      - shimon 11y ago
        That's hardly the only alternative. A visitor could instead pay them to be a guide, even a mountaineering guide on another thrilling but less suicidal trek.
    - civilian 11y ago
      Don't we often transfer risk of death while buying certain products? Doesn't my enjoyment of king crab rely on transferring the risk of death while fishing in the arctic from myself to poor fishermen in Alaska? Doesn't any diamond I buy rely on conflict or slavery?
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  Why does your interpretation of capitalism not have agreements? Having clients sign on to cancellation/abort fees is fairly common. In other words: contracts, contracts, contracts. Slavery, mercantilism, barter system, communism, etc don't solve this problem any better. In fact, historically, they're much, much worse.
- simonh 11y ago
  Capitalism has nothing particularly to do with people getting paid for their labour. That occurs in lots of economic systems including communism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc. It's about who pays for the means of production, who owns the businesses and who is paying for the labour. But there is still labour and the labour has to be paid for and there needs to be some agreement about that under any economic system. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that can help explain this, if you're confused about it.
  - maxander 11y ago
    One might argue that in a communist or otherwise "leftist" system, conditions of payment would have more to do with a rational assessment of the situation, rather than as a trade. The sherpas being paid in spite of not having done the work they had contracted for, due to some mere unforeseen circumstances, being a good example of the former kind of reasoning. Whether a communist system actually would or could operate in this manner is probably best left as an empirical question.
kylehotchkiss 11y ago
> dhal bhat-induced gastrointestinal disaster LOL. Been to Nepal twice and despite eating this every meal (nearly flavorless rice & lentil soup), can't say it had any side effects. The water situation in Nepal is dire, take a heavy filter with you, but if the food wasn't purchased on the street or wasn't an unwashed fruit, you're likely fine.
- wavefunction 11y ago
  My strategy with fruit in other countries is to only buy fruit with a peel, preferably a peel I can manually remove unless I have a knife with me. Most travelers are diligent about avoiding direct contamination from local water or even ice. Fewer consider the indirect contamination that can occur from a glass washed in tap-water without detergent, or knives used to cut fruit that are washed off in the local water. I brush my teeth with bottled water, as well.
- sirtastic 11y ago
  > The water situation in Nepal is dire, take a heavy filter with you, I spent over a month backpacking around the Annapurna region of Nepal without a filter drinking from both stream and well water without treatment the entire time I was there. Never had a problem. If you are referring to water in / around a village you could say water of every country is dire since that water is almost always contaminated somehow. The water coming straight off a mountain is almost always perfectly fine in my experience which is the case anywhere you go. I'll also add I spoke with several people who also went without a filter and drank from both village wells and streams without any issues. Matter of fact I know of no one who got sick in Nepal. I also ate tons of street food and dhal baht from some of the most hole in the wall places, no issues. As always your mileage may vary but I think calling the situation dire is a stretch.
  - pg_bot 11y ago
    You must have incredible gastrointestinal fortitude because I haven't met any westerners who would share your opinion. For others reading this, if you are going to Nepal or some other third world country don't trust the water. Bring a filter and use it religiously, unless you want to spend a day glued to a toilet like I did.
victorhooi 11y ago
I was planning a trip to Nepal, to hike to Base Camp - Macchu Picchu was a great experience, so I thought this would be the same. But then a friend send me this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-cells-into-thin-air/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-cells-into-t... Apparently, hiking at altitude causes permanent changes in the brain, even at "low" altitudes like EBC - which has kinda freaked me off about the trek. I wonder how the sherpas/local populace deal with that?
- hvs 11y ago
  Probably a lifetime of living in low-oxygen conditions has caused their lungs to compensate. That, and I would assume some effects on their brains.
- vanattab 11y ago
  >I wonder how the sherpas/local populace deal with that? Evolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_humans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_... From the wiki page: "In fact, the adaptation account of the Tibetans has become the fastest case of human evolution in the scientific record, as it is estimated to have occurred in less than 3,000 years."
- DanielStraight 11y ago
  Study behind the article: http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(05)00674-1/fulltext http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(05)00674-1/fulltext
  - victorhooi 11y ago
    Yeah, I read the study - the sample size is small, but I'm still freaked out by the science - as in, I'm worried if I go hiking to that altitude and what the permanent effects could be.
- caio1982 11y ago
  I've trekked the whole Annapurna circuit and its max altitude is about the same EBC IIRC. Really, it hurts a bit for a little while but getting tattooed hurts more in comparison to what you are doing and seeing. Also, the more you stays there the less it hurts or affects your body (I have spent 40 days in the mountains). Machu Picchu is nothing compared to Nepal's mountains, go for it! You won't regret it :-)
engates 11y ago
If you feel bad for the sherpas, don't go climb Mt Everest. Or, pay them what you think they're worth. Tip them big time if you feel they aren't getting paid enough.
hyperliner 11y ago
This is going to be controversial, but I think it needs to be said. IMHO, this scenario is an example of "top of first world problem" meets "bottom of third world problem" and the outcome is not pretty. You have a number of folks with tons of resources, hiding behind for-profit companies that aggregate demand, and hire the cheapest form of back-breaking help they can get. This help does not have any other options, and because the agreement is with the companies, they have very little connection with the buyer. This happens with: - Car washers (sorry, but can you please redo my car because you left a streak here and I paid $8). - Nannies (sorry, have to cancel today. Sorry you cant reschedule other people but my fiance rescheduled our dining / wining outing) - Home cleaning services (sorry, but I have a headache and can't have noise at the house. Sorry you can't reschedule and will have to miss my money to make rent) - Drivers (sorry, i just wanted to go one block but did not want to scratch my brand new $400 shoes) - Immigrant laborers picking your fruit (send them back!) - Sherpas (read the article) This is why if I have to use an Uber ride for < $5, I add a $10 on top directly to the driver. I think the Everest situation is actually a little sillier, in that you have a bunch of people coming home saying "I climbed Everest!" and everybody forgets the little detail that they had personal staff prepping their every way. I have a lot of appreciation for others though who do this challenge overcoming real obstacles such as blindness, missing a body part, or some other personal tragedy which must be conquered through conquering the big mountain, so I am not referring to these situations in my comments. Downvotes expected.
- sosborn 11y ago
  >I think the Everest situation is actually a little sillier, in that you have a bunch of people coming home saying "I climbed Everest!" and everybody forgets the little detail that they had personal staff prepping their every way. This doesn't really invalidate the accomplishment though. Everest is so extreme that getting to the top, even with support staff, is damn impressive.
  - hyperliner 11y ago
    I don't disagree with your point, but my point is that we need to imagine what it must be for the guys carrying the heaviest of the loads!
TheMagicHorsey 11y ago
I'm not Nepalese, but I visit India quite a bit, and I have met Nepalese there. Many security guards in Delhi and Bangalore come from Nepal. There's also a Nepalese waitress at chaat cafe in SOMA who is very chatty. The Nepalese seem to be deeply ambivalent towards mountain climbers. The Google exec who died climbing Everest last year was a vocal supporter of the Sherpas, but even he didn't seem to be a bit blind to the nature of his hobby. Americans want to believe there is something courageous about flying across the world to some exotic locale, and then creating an economy there around some terribly dangerous activity, which encourages the locals to risk life and limb to support. Climbing is a hobby for a rich guy from Google. Maybe it's even spiritual. But for Sherpas it's like plumbing or driving a taxi. They do it because it provides resources they can use to support their families. Are the Sherpas better off with the climbers? Perhaps. It's hard to say, because while climbing brings a lot of money, the Sherpas might have moved to cities, to India, or even to America if that opportunity hadn't materialized. Maybe they would have developed some marketable crafts or products? Who knows. Everest is their resource curse. Like boxers and football players from ghettos in America, the Sherpas sacrifice their bodies for American entertainment, not because they want to, but because they have to.
- sirsar 11y ago
  > Are the Sherpas better off with the climbers? Perhaps. It's hard to say, because while climbing brings a lot of money, the Sherpas might have moved to cities, to India, or even to America if that opportunity hadn't materialized. What's wrong with allowing the Sherpas to make that choice, instead of us moralizers trying to make it for them? Unless I'm missing something, they still can move to cities or to India, at least to the extent they could before the advent of the Everest industry. In fact, the revenue from guiding may even help them with the costs associated with moving to America. It's not like we intentionally keep Sherpas in the dark about the dangers they face. I also don't think it's the case that the rise of the Sherpa business destroyed other less dangerous jobs in the area, although I'm willing to be proven wrong. > Like boxers and football players from ghettos in America, the Sherpas sacrifice their bodies for American entertainment, not because they want to, but because they have to. I would wager there are many boxers out there who disagree.
tyho 11y ago
I don't do alpine climbing but I do climb in the UK lots. Climbers here have very strong views about how things should be climbed, it doesn't matter if you got to the top if you did it in bad style. For example, if you are climbing and you weight your equipment even for just a second, the whole ascent does not count (there is aid climbing but that is not real climbing). If you can't climb the route in good style, then don't climb it. What good style is varies location to location but the lengths Everest climbers go to in my opinion are laughable. They pay poor people to fix ladders across crevasses? They pay poor people to fix ropes? I am not denying that climbing Everest with these advantages is hard, it is still very hard, but just because it is hard does not make it worthwhile.
- jzwinck 11y ago
  There is No True Scotsman mountaineer, I suppose.
  - avs733 11y ago
    (long time sport climber here from a family of climbers, brother to a serious trad climber and mountaineer) don't even get them started on the discussion of 'booty' and what is effectively claiming gear from the weak who test their limits or try things beyond them. Climber logic is often strange and puzzling thing to me. It is some weird hybrid of libertarianism, anarchism, and statism at the same time. The unspoken rules must be followed, unless I disagree with them in which case they restrict my freedom you fascist....everyone should just climb how they want but hey stop that right now...love my climbing friends but boy do I end up scratching my head sometimes.
    - vacri 11y ago
      A good friend of mine talked of a couple he knew who were big into climbing. You could really enjoy your time with them, as long as the discussion was around some form of climbing. Anything that was not climbing was simply not interesting to them - the example my friend gave was offering to play a board game, and them asking if it was about climbing...
theyeti 11y ago
Nepalese national here. While I can confirm that most of the stuff in the NY Times article is true, what bothers me the most is how helpless is the Nepalese government with this regard. Tourism dollars and oversea migrant workers' wages make up for a sizable (and growing) chunk of Nepal's GDP. Every day hundreds of migrant workers leave for the middle east in search of better work. A few of them come back in coffins, others come with disease or a youth wasted in foreign land. Now, don't get my prospective wrong, but the situation of Sherpas is better compared to the migrant workers. While its not the most desirable job, its better among the ones available.
ignoramous 11y ago
I followed the Everest Avalanche episode in 2014 with great despair. I was following Natgeo's account on Instagram where they had updates every hour it seemed. It was heartbreaking. Donations: http://everestavalanchetragedy.com/sherpa-fund.html http://everestavalanchetragedy.com/sherpa-fund.html Sherpas earning way below what they deserve is an open secret, yet they are better paid than rest of the country. Nepalese government support after the avalanche hit was telling. There's no formal support structure whatsoever. The members of the British Expedition that first summited the Everest opened up schools and charities for the Sherpas there [0]. The Government needs to get its act together too, and tighten regulations. Climbing Everest has long become a mis-placed adventure. A notorious incident where a solo Spanish climber was left for dead whilst other climbers on-trail just watched him die, comes to mind... there's nothing they could have done though, to help him... how can an experience like that amount to an "adventure"? [1] A Chinese business-woman, I think, summited Everest right after the disaster struck. She flew across the icefall in a heli, what many "climbers" consider "cheating" [2]. Sherpas, in addition to their favourable genetic make-up custom built for high-altitude are known for their bravery too. There are recored instances of Sherpas putting their life in danger to save their client's life. It is almost a given that the Sherpa wouldn't abandon you, even if the chances of survival were really grim. An unfortunate incident that happened at K2 in '08 serves as a reminder and a proof of this. It fills me with extreme sadness, every time I read it. The perils of high-altitude climbing are many-- HAPE, HACE, Blindness, Oxygen starvation (this has the most dire consequence imaginable, it takes away one's ability to act rationally), and most of the climbers don't worry too much, because the Sherpas got their back. Mt. Godwin Austin (K2) is considered to be the deadliest and toughest of the 8000'ers to climb. It isn't as commercialized. Speaking of K2... the history of the first-ever expedition (from Italy) to successfully summit the K2 is fraught with fraud, spite, and hubris [4]. High-altitude climbing is one of those things that is hard to understand for people not emotionally invested in it. [0] http://himalayantrust.org/ http://himalayantrust.org/ [1] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151008-the-graveyard-in-the-clouds-everests-200-dead-bodies http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151008-the-graveyard-in-th... [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140805-mount-everest-sherpa-mountain-climbing-jing-wang-avalanche/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140805-mount... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_K2_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_K2_disaster [4] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28696985 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28696985
reedlaw 11y ago
What would it take to put a stop to Everest climbing? The author repeatedly points to the irrationality of the situation: But as irrational as it may sound, a part of my subconscious was worried that if we didn’t continue, I would be cursed to come back for a third attempt. Everest induces vertigo on your reasoning processes. "As a dice roll for someone paying to reach the summit, the dangers of climbing can perhaps be rationalized. There’s no other service industry in the world that so frequently kills and maims its workers for the benefit of paying clients.” Despite knowing all this, people still climb which means there is some other factor at work. If there was a greater respect for life (for the lives of climbers themselves and for the lives of Sherpas) perhaps there wouldn't be so many willing to take great risks to scale the mountain.
mchahn 11y ago
Is it true that climbers on Everest pass by frozen dead climbers that are permanently there?
- Stratoscope 11y ago
  Yes. But sometimes they disappear! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Boots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Boots
dschiptsov 11y ago
This probably should not be here. The whole business is an ugly affair, full of arrogant, rich, narcissistic fat cats, local corruption and fraud, and striking inequality. Nevertheless, it is a self-sustained ecosystem, fueled by relatively big money of narcissistic bastards (starting from $50k per head and up to $150, which some Japanese guy paid to reach the top at the age of above 75 - I don't remember exactly) which is certainly a huge money for Nepal. A small percentage of these money (the most of it sank into bottomless pockets of agency owners and govt officials) buys all the manual labor required to place a tourist on the top, from yak caravans carrying supplies of food and cooking gas from Lukla to porters carrying tourist's luggage, cooks, guides who fix the ropes, managers, etc. One should understand that Nepal is still a traditionally caste-based and inherently unequal society, no matter what the communist infested govt is saying. What tourists call "Sherpa" is not just one ethic group of Nepalese Sherpas - natives of the Solukhumbu region, but a mix of several tribes, among whom Sherpas are majority. As strange as it sounds, there is not much tension about different castes (even among Sherpas there are a few castes) involved on this business. Lower castes do manual labor for small wages, higher castes do the "management" for relatively big profits, but everyone are satisfied with their lot. This is how local economy works for hundreds of years. Moreover, Nepalese society, being segregated among more than 40 different tribes, is a remarkable example of tolerance and cross-ethnic respect for a so diverse nation. If you boarding an intercity bus in Kathmandu you will encounter members of at least 10 different tribes, and, in a deep contrast to Western cultures, there will be not a slight tension among people. It has something to do with less selfishness, arrogance and narcissism of competitive individualistic societies. BTW, in case of an avalanche everyone is equal - the guides and the porters. So there is nothing much to dramatize and sensationalize. Yes, it is a hard, risk taking field work. But no one forces anyone to take this job. What really annoying are these office stooges, who are routinely trying to make a publicity for themselves with all these meaningless PR actions, publications, etc. Go there, and pay more cash to the wage laborers, rise the wages of your staff by keeping less in your pockets, by spending less on your own status and comfort - this will worth more that all your hypocrite "projects" combined. Avalanches is not the main problem in Himalaya. Corruption and hypocrisy is.
- j1vms 11y ago
  > The whole business is an ugly affair, full of arrogant, rich, narcissistic fat cats, local corruption and fraud, and striking inequality. So it's essentially modern human history and current human affairs, in a microcosm. That might be coming across cynical, but at the same time, hopefully there is light at the end of our collective tunnel - so to speak.
landryraccoon 11y ago
It feels to me like climbing Mount Everest, in its current form, is selfish and socially and environmentally irresponsible. What does it prove other than that one is wealthy and willing to risk life and the lives of local people (and needlessly polluting the environment) while spending a ton of money just for some selfie opportunities?
cornholio 11y ago
I wonder if ignoring the prevailing wage of the labor market is the correct approach. Since sherpa wages are one of the principal expenses, this will automatically lead to higher costs for the climbers, therefore less demand and less jobs. In an environment where significantly higher wages are paid to select few, you will have corruption in recruiting (a significant part of the wage will go to middlemen, not to the workers) and even stronger abuse by the team leaders since there is more to lose if you are fired. Also, if western companies decide to provide these "ethical wages", it opens up a large market for Chinese or Nepalese companies who might treat workers even worse. It goes without saying that no expense should be spared in protecting lives, sherpa should not be exposed to more risks than absolutely necessary and should be covered by comprehensive insurance. If need be, this should be imposed by the regulatory power of the Nepalese state.

180 points by jstreebin 11y ago

“We’d like to go home to our families, but the Sherpas are worried that if we cancel the expedition we will not get paid. We are willing to continue.” Capitalism in its purest form.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
AustinG08 11y ago
wut? seems more like an extreme form to me.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  Genuinely curious: What is "extreme" capitalism? How does it differ from "pure" capitalism, in this example?
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    It depends, if you think 100% pure unadulterated capitalism is a good thing, then "pure" is "good". If you think capitalism needs some checks and bounds then "pure" is "bad". In the former case, "extreme capitalism" and "pure capitalism" may be two different things. In the latter, they are synonymous. Essentially... depends on your point of view.
    - jdmichal 11y ago
      I still fail to see the difference. You seem to be suggesting that "extreme" is being used as a bad replacement for "against my moral views"? That is, that "pure" capitalism is "extreme" capitalism if and when "pure" capitalism is "bad"? What would qualify as "extreme" capitalism in the former?
      - davnn 11y ago
        Did I really just read that discussion? Have to stop wasting time on HN.
  - AustinG08 11y ago
    In this example? I don't know, maybe this is what capitalism looks like in Nepal, but I've never been so I have no idea. All I know is my paycheck isn't drenched in blood, sweat, and tears, which to be clear, I am very grateful for.
    - jdmichal 11y ago
      You said it seems like an "extreme" form. Now you don't know what that means? I don't mean to seem confrontational; I simply didn't and still don't understand your comment. So far my guess is that, as hinted in this and another response [0], that "extreme" is being used as a euphemism for "things I morally disagree with". Which, to me, does not make it any less "pure", but is rather your judgement on what "pure" capitalism is. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11376801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11376801
      - AustinG08 11y ago
        Well capitalism is defined as: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." I don't see how this tragic event is a pure form of anything except tragedy.
        jdmichal 11y ago
        A tragic event happened. The Sherpa valued going home to mourn, and also valued being paid. I believe that collyw was suggesting that in "pure" capitalism, payment wouldn't occur unless services are rendered. So the ideas of "going home to mourn" and "being paid" would be incompatible. The result as stated was that "being paid" was considered to be of higher value, and thus they would continue. This is capitalism, because the Sherpa were privately allocating their capital (in this case, themselves and their skills) to what they considered the most valuable pursuit at the moment. I don't make any value judgements in the above, except perhaps in the first sentence. It's simply my interpretation of the comment, and how the quote was representing "pure" capitalism in my understanding. I think by now you have sufficiently, if indirectly, answered my question of what you meant by "extreme". It seems like I was probably correct in my guess.
omonra 11y ago
Imho it ultimately comes down to whether the clients will demand their money back. If they don't - I don't see why operators would even mind. But if they do - the operators will have to pay costs (permits, sherpas, etc) while having no revenue.
- takk309 11y ago
  Most people that climb Everest take out insurance that protects them from a cancellation of their trip. It is the insurance companies that, in turn, refuse payment to the Sherpa.
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > Most people that climb Everest take out insurance that protects them from a cancellation of their trip. It is the insurance companies that, in turn, refuse payment to the Sherpa. That can't be the full story, though. Because the obvious answer to that is that the Sherpa mountaineers should purchase insurance against cancellation of bookings (this is quite common for tourist attractions in more developed economies). Underwriting this insurance would be quite easy, because the people who underwrite the insurance policies for the tourist climbers should be quite happy to underwrite policies for the Sherpa mountaineers as well.
    - takk309 11y ago
      You raise a very good point about the Sherpa needing to have insurance against a failed expedition. Sadly, they rarely even have life insurance. An article from Rock and Ice cites a death benefit of $4,600 in 2013.[1] [1] http://www.rockandice.com/lates-news/exploitation-everest-sherpas-no-longer-willing-to-grin-and-bear-it http://www.rockandice.com/lates-news/exploitation-everest-sh...
      - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
        The GDP per capita in Nepal is $700. So $4,600 is 6.5 years of wages. That's like someone in the west who makes $100,000 a year having a $650,000 life insurance. Which is a whole hell of a lot more than the one my employer offers.
zeveb 11y ago
Were it not for capitalism, they'd be living in extreme poverty, scratching out a marginal existence on the borders of the world. Because of capitalism, they are far better off than they would be. Capitalism at its finest.
- shimon 11y ago
  Assuming the Sherpas aren't forced into this line of work, then you're right - they're choosing it over the alternatives because it's a better option for them. That doesn't mean that it's ethical for visitors to a country to enjoy a sport wherein they pay to transfer risk of death away from themselves and onto less advantaged local people. I'm not against this type of deal in principle - it's vital to the existence of institutions like EMS and the military - but when the whole thing exists so that megalomaniacs can tick off another box on the "hard things I've achieved" list, there is a real question of justice. Most people who love capitalism might still draw the line at some types of transactions -- maybe your line is at selling organs or child prostitution, but it probably exists somewhere.
  - chc 11y ago
    > Assuming the Sherpas aren't forced into this line of work, then you're right - they're choosing it over the alternatives because it's a better option for them > That doesn't mean that it's ethical for visitors to a country to enjoy a sport wherein they pay to transfer risk of death away from themselves and onto less advantaged local people. I have trouble seeing how it's more ethical to remove the choice from their hands and force them to do things that they demonstrably would rather not do.
    - shimon 11y ago
      That's hardly the only alternative. A visitor could instead pay them to be a guide, even a mountaineering guide on another thrilling but less suicidal trek.
  - civilian 11y ago
    Don't we often transfer risk of death while buying certain products? Doesn't my enjoyment of king crab rely on transferring the risk of death while fishing in the arctic from myself to poor fishermen in Alaska? Doesn't any diamond I buy rely on conflict or slavery?
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Why does your interpretation of capitalism not have agreements? Having clients sign on to cancellation/abort fees is fairly common. In other words: contracts, contracts, contracts. Slavery, mercantilism, barter system, communism, etc don't solve this problem any better. In fact, historically, they're much, much worse.
simonh 11y ago
Capitalism has nothing particularly to do with people getting paid for their labour. That occurs in lots of economic systems including communism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc. It's about who pays for the means of production, who owns the businesses and who is paying for the labour. But there is still labour and the labour has to be paid for and there needs to be some agreement about that under any economic system. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that can help explain this, if you're confused about it.
- maxander 11y ago
  One might argue that in a communist or otherwise "leftist" system, conditions of payment would have more to do with a rational assessment of the situation, rather than as a trade. The sherpas being paid in spite of not having done the work they had contracted for, due to some mere unforeseen circumstances, being a good example of the former kind of reasoning. Whether a communist system actually would or could operate in this manner is probably best left as an empirical question.

kylehotchkiss 11y ago

> dhal bhat-induced gastrointestinal disaster LOL. Been to Nepal twice and despite eating this every meal (nearly flavorless rice & lentil soup), can't say it had any side effects. The water situation in Nepal is dire, take a heavy filter with you, but if the food wasn't purchased on the street or wasn't an unwashed fruit, you're likely fine.

wavefunction 11y ago
My strategy with fruit in other countries is to only buy fruit with a peel, preferably a peel I can manually remove unless I have a knife with me. Most travelers are diligent about avoiding direct contamination from local water or even ice. Fewer consider the indirect contamination that can occur from a glass washed in tap-water without detergent, or knives used to cut fruit that are washed off in the local water. I brush my teeth with bottled water, as well.
sirtastic 11y ago
> The water situation in Nepal is dire, take a heavy filter with you, I spent over a month backpacking around the Annapurna region of Nepal without a filter drinking from both stream and well water without treatment the entire time I was there. Never had a problem. If you are referring to water in / around a village you could say water of every country is dire since that water is almost always contaminated somehow. The water coming straight off a mountain is almost always perfectly fine in my experience which is the case anywhere you go. I'll also add I spoke with several people who also went without a filter and drank from both village wells and streams without any issues. Matter of fact I know of no one who got sick in Nepal. I also ate tons of street food and dhal baht from some of the most hole in the wall places, no issues. As always your mileage may vary but I think calling the situation dire is a stretch.
- pg_bot 11y ago
  You must have incredible gastrointestinal fortitude because I haven't met any westerners who would share your opinion. For others reading this, if you are going to Nepal or some other third world country don't trust the water. Bring a filter and use it religiously, unless you want to spend a day glued to a toilet like I did.

victorhooi 11y ago

I was planning a trip to Nepal, to hike to Base Camp - Macchu Picchu was a great experience, so I thought this would be the same. But then a friend send me this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-cells-into-thin-air/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-cells-into-t... Apparently, hiking at altitude causes permanent changes in the brain, even at "low" altitudes like EBC - which has kinda freaked me off about the trek. I wonder how the sherpas/local populace deal with that?

hvs 11y ago
Probably a lifetime of living in low-oxygen conditions has caused their lungs to compensate. That, and I would assume some effects on their brains.
vanattab 11y ago
>I wonder how the sherpas/local populace deal with that? Evolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_humans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_... From the wiki page: "In fact, the adaptation account of the Tibetans has become the fastest case of human evolution in the scientific record, as it is estimated to have occurred in less than 3,000 years."
DanielStraight 11y ago
Study behind the article: http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(05)00674-1/fulltext http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(05)00674-1/fulltext
- victorhooi 11y ago
  Yeah, I read the study - the sample size is small, but I'm still freaked out by the science - as in, I'm worried if I go hiking to that altitude and what the permanent effects could be.
caio1982 11y ago
I've trekked the whole Annapurna circuit and its max altitude is about the same EBC IIRC. Really, it hurts a bit for a little while but getting tattooed hurts more in comparison to what you are doing and seeing. Also, the more you stays there the less it hurts or affects your body (I have spent 40 days in the mountains). Machu Picchu is nothing compared to Nepal's mountains, go for it! You won't regret it :-)

engates 11y ago

If you feel bad for the sherpas, don't go climb Mt Everest. Or, pay them what you think they're worth. Tip them big time if you feel they aren't getting paid enough.

hyperliner 11y ago

This is going to be controversial, but I think it needs to be said. IMHO, this scenario is an example of "top of first world problem" meets "bottom of third world problem" and the outcome is not pretty. You have a number of folks with tons of resources, hiding behind for-profit companies that aggregate demand, and hire the cheapest form of back-breaking help they can get. This help does not have any other options, and because the agreement is with the companies, they have very little connection with the buyer. This happens with: - Car washers (sorry, but can you please redo my car because you left a streak here and I paid $8). - Nannies (sorry, have to cancel today. Sorry you cant reschedule other people but my fiance rescheduled our dining / wining outing) - Home cleaning services (sorry, but I have a headache and can't have noise at the house. Sorry you can't reschedule and will have to miss my money to make rent) - Drivers (sorry, i just wanted to go one block but did not want to scratch my brand new $400 shoes) - Immigrant laborers picking your fruit (send them back!) - Sherpas (read the article) This is why if I have to use an Uber ride for < $5, I add a $10 on top directly to the driver. I think the Everest situation is actually a little sillier, in that you have a bunch of people coming home saying "I climbed Everest!" and everybody forgets the little detail that they had personal staff prepping their every way. I have a lot of appreciation for others though who do this challenge overcoming real obstacles such as blindness, missing a body part, or some other personal tragedy which must be conquered through conquering the big mountain, so I am not referring to these situations in my comments. Downvotes expected.

sosborn 11y ago
>I think the Everest situation is actually a little sillier, in that you have a bunch of people coming home saying "I climbed Everest!" and everybody forgets the little detail that they had personal staff prepping their every way. This doesn't really invalidate the accomplishment though. Everest is so extreme that getting to the top, even with support staff, is damn impressive.
- hyperliner 11y ago
  I don't disagree with your point, but my point is that we need to imagine what it must be for the guys carrying the heaviest of the loads!

TheMagicHorsey 11y ago

I'm not Nepalese, but I visit India quite a bit, and I have met Nepalese there. Many security guards in Delhi and Bangalore come from Nepal. There's also a Nepalese waitress at chaat cafe in SOMA who is very chatty. The Nepalese seem to be deeply ambivalent towards mountain climbers. The Google exec who died climbing Everest last year was a vocal supporter of the Sherpas, but even he didn't seem to be a bit blind to the nature of his hobby. Americans want to believe there is something courageous about flying across the world to some exotic locale, and then creating an economy there around some terribly dangerous activity, which encourages the locals to risk life and limb to support. Climbing is a hobby for a rich guy from Google. Maybe it's even spiritual. But for Sherpas it's like plumbing or driving a taxi. They do it because it provides resources they can use to support their families. Are the Sherpas better off with the climbers? Perhaps. It's hard to say, because while climbing brings a lot of money, the Sherpas might have moved to cities, to India, or even to America if that opportunity hadn't materialized. Maybe they would have developed some marketable crafts or products? Who knows. Everest is their resource curse. Like boxers and football players from ghettos in America, the Sherpas sacrifice their bodies for American entertainment, not because they want to, but because they have to.

sirsar 11y ago
> Are the Sherpas better off with the climbers? Perhaps. It's hard to say, because while climbing brings a lot of money, the Sherpas might have moved to cities, to India, or even to America if that opportunity hadn't materialized. What's wrong with allowing the Sherpas to make that choice, instead of us moralizers trying to make it for them? Unless I'm missing something, they still can move to cities or to India, at least to the extent they could before the advent of the Everest industry. In fact, the revenue from guiding may even help them with the costs associated with moving to America. It's not like we intentionally keep Sherpas in the dark about the dangers they face. I also don't think it's the case that the rise of the Sherpa business destroyed other less dangerous jobs in the area, although I'm willing to be proven wrong. > Like boxers and football players from ghettos in America, the Sherpas sacrifice their bodies for American entertainment, not because they want to, but because they have to. I would wager there are many boxers out there who disagree.

tyho 11y ago

I don't do alpine climbing but I do climb in the UK lots. Climbers here have very strong views about how things should be climbed, it doesn't matter if you got to the top if you did it in bad style. For example, if you are climbing and you weight your equipment even for just a second, the whole ascent does not count (there is aid climbing but that is not real climbing). If you can't climb the route in good style, then don't climb it. What good style is varies location to location but the lengths Everest climbers go to in my opinion are laughable. They pay poor people to fix ladders across crevasses? They pay poor people to fix ropes? I am not denying that climbing Everest with these advantages is hard, it is still very hard, but just because it is hard does not make it worthwhile.

jzwinck 11y ago
There is No True Scotsman mountaineer, I suppose.
- avs733 11y ago
  (long time sport climber here from a family of climbers, brother to a serious trad climber and mountaineer) don't even get them started on the discussion of 'booty' and what is effectively claiming gear from the weak who test their limits or try things beyond them. Climber logic is often strange and puzzling thing to me. It is some weird hybrid of libertarianism, anarchism, and statism at the same time. The unspoken rules must be followed, unless I disagree with them in which case they restrict my freedom you fascist....everyone should just climb how they want but hey stop that right now...love my climbing friends but boy do I end up scratching my head sometimes.
  - vacri 11y ago
    A good friend of mine talked of a couple he knew who were big into climbing. You could really enjoy your time with them, as long as the discussion was around some form of climbing. Anything that was not climbing was simply not interesting to them - the example my friend gave was offering to play a board game, and them asking if it was about climbing...

theyeti 11y ago

Nepalese national here. While I can confirm that most of the stuff in the NY Times article is true, what bothers me the most is how helpless is the Nepalese government with this regard. Tourism dollars and oversea migrant workers' wages make up for a sizable (and growing) chunk of Nepal's GDP. Every day hundreds of migrant workers leave for the middle east in search of better work. A few of them come back in coffins, others come with disease or a youth wasted in foreign land. Now, don't get my prospective wrong, but the situation of Sherpas is better compared to the migrant workers. While its not the most desirable job, its better among the ones available.

ignoramous 11y ago

I followed the Everest Avalanche episode in 2014 with great despair. I was following Natgeo's account on Instagram where they had updates every hour it seemed. It was heartbreaking. Donations: http://everestavalanchetragedy.com/sherpa-fund.html http://everestavalanchetragedy.com/sherpa-fund.html Sherpas earning way below what they deserve is an open secret, yet they are better paid than rest of the country. Nepalese government support after the avalanche hit was telling. There's no formal support structure whatsoever. The members of the British Expedition that first summited the Everest opened up schools and charities for the Sherpas there [0]. The Government needs to get its act together too, and tighten regulations. Climbing Everest has long become a mis-placed adventure. A notorious incident where a solo Spanish climber was left for dead whilst other climbers on-trail just watched him die, comes to mind... there's nothing they could have done though, to help him... how can an experience like that amount to an "adventure"? [1] A Chinese business-woman, I think, summited Everest right after the disaster struck. She flew across the icefall in a heli, what many "climbers" consider "cheating" [2]. Sherpas, in addition to their favourable genetic make-up custom built for high-altitude are known for their bravery too. There are recored instances of Sherpas putting their life in danger to save their client's life. It is almost a given that the Sherpa wouldn't abandon you, even if the chances of survival were really grim. An unfortunate incident that happened at K2 in '08 serves as a reminder and a proof of this. It fills me with extreme sadness, every time I read it. The perils of high-altitude climbing are many-- HAPE, HACE, Blindness, Oxygen starvation (this has the most dire consequence imaginable, it takes away one's ability to act rationally), and most of the climbers don't worry too much, because the Sherpas got their back. Mt. Godwin Austin (K2) is considered to be the deadliest and toughest of the 8000'ers to climb. It isn't as commercialized. Speaking of K2... the history of the first-ever expedition (from Italy) to successfully summit the K2 is fraught with fraud, spite, and hubris [4]. High-altitude climbing is one of those things that is hard to understand for people not emotionally invested in it. [0] http://himalayantrust.org/ http://himalayantrust.org/ [1] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151008-the-graveyard-in-the-clouds-everests-200-dead-bodies http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151008-the-graveyard-in-th... [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140805-mount-everest-sherpa-mountain-climbing-jing-wang-avalanche/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140805-mount... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_K2_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_K2_disaster [4] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28696985 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28696985

reedlaw 11y ago

What would it take to put a stop to Everest climbing? The author repeatedly points to the irrationality of the situation: But as irrational as it may sound, a part of my subconscious was worried that if we didn’t continue, I would be cursed to come back for a third attempt. Everest induces vertigo on your reasoning processes. "As a dice roll for someone paying to reach the summit, the dangers of climbing can perhaps be rationalized. There’s no other service industry in the world that so frequently kills and maims its workers for the benefit of paying clients.” Despite knowing all this, people still climb which means there is some other factor at work. If there was a greater respect for life (for the lives of climbers themselves and for the lives of Sherpas) perhaps there wouldn't be so many willing to take great risks to scale the mountain.

mchahn 11y ago

Is it true that climbers on Everest pass by frozen dead climbers that are permanently there?

Stratoscope 11y ago
Yes. But sometimes they disappear! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Boots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Boots

dschiptsov 11y ago

This probably should not be here. The whole business is an ugly affair, full of arrogant, rich, narcissistic fat cats, local corruption and fraud, and striking inequality. Nevertheless, it is a self-sustained ecosystem, fueled by relatively big money of narcissistic bastards (starting from $50k per head and up to $150, which some Japanese guy paid to reach the top at the age of above 75 - I don't remember exactly) which is certainly a huge money for Nepal. A small percentage of these money (the most of it sank into bottomless pockets of agency owners and govt officials) buys all the manual labor required to place a tourist on the top, from yak caravans carrying supplies of food and cooking gas from Lukla to porters carrying tourist's luggage, cooks, guides who fix the ropes, managers, etc. One should understand that Nepal is still a traditionally caste-based and inherently unequal society, no matter what the communist infested govt is saying. What tourists call "Sherpa" is not just one ethic group of Nepalese Sherpas - natives of the Solukhumbu region, but a mix of several tribes, among whom Sherpas are majority. As strange as it sounds, there is not much tension about different castes (even among Sherpas there are a few castes) involved on this business. Lower castes do manual labor for small wages, higher castes do the "management" for relatively big profits, but everyone are satisfied with their lot. This is how local economy works for hundreds of years. Moreover, Nepalese society, being segregated among more than 40 different tribes, is a remarkable example of tolerance and cross-ethnic respect for a so diverse nation. If you boarding an intercity bus in Kathmandu you will encounter members of at least 10 different tribes, and, in a deep contrast to Western cultures, there will be not a slight tension among people. It has something to do with less selfishness, arrogance and narcissism of competitive individualistic societies. BTW, in case of an avalanche everyone is equal - the guides and the porters. So there is nothing much to dramatize and sensationalize. Yes, it is a hard, risk taking field work. But no one forces anyone to take this job. What really annoying are these office stooges, who are routinely trying to make a publicity for themselves with all these meaningless PR actions, publications, etc. Go there, and pay more cash to the wage laborers, rise the wages of your staff by keeping less in your pockets, by spending less on your own status and comfort - this will worth more that all your hypocrite "projects" combined. Avalanches is not the main problem in Himalaya. Corruption and hypocrisy is.

j1vms 11y ago
> The whole business is an ugly affair, full of arrogant, rich, narcissistic fat cats, local corruption and fraud, and striking inequality. So it's essentially modern human history and current human affairs, in a microcosm. That might be coming across cynical, but at the same time, hopefully there is light at the end of our collective tunnel - so to speak.

landryraccoon 11y ago

It feels to me like climbing Mount Everest, in its current form, is selfish and socially and environmentally irresponsible. What does it prove other than that one is wealthy and willing to risk life and the lives of local people (and needlessly polluting the environment) while spending a ton of money just for some selfie opportunities?

cornholio 11y ago

I wonder if ignoring the prevailing wage of the labor market is the correct approach. Since sherpa wages are one of the principal expenses, this will automatically lead to higher costs for the climbers, therefore less demand and less jobs. In an environment where significantly higher wages are paid to select few, you will have corruption in recruiting (a significant part of the wage will go to middlemen, not to the workers) and even stronger abuse by the team leaders since there is more to lose if you are fired. Also, if western companies decide to provide these "ethical wages", it opens up a large market for Chinese or Nepalese companies who might treat workers even worse. It goes without saying that no expense should be spared in protecting lives, sherpa should not be exposed to more risks than absolutely necessary and should be covered by comprehensive insurance. If need be, this should be imposed by the regulatory power of the Nepalese state.