6 ms·

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 Nep

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.
- vacri 11y ago
  > What's wrong with allowing the Sherpas to make that choice The parent comment wasn't suggesting that they shouldn't. Doesn't mean we can't discuss our own opinions on the matter.
- karmajunkie 11y ago
  The question isn't whether we moralize about the dangers they face in a profession they choose from options available to them. It's whether they're paid equitably for the job or are exploited for the benefit of western companies which neither provide adequately for their families in the event of their death nor enforce safeguards to limit their risk to the extent possible.
- IkmoIkmo 11y ago
  > I would wager there are many boxers out there who disagree. A boxer would say YDKSAB.
- ebola1717 11y ago
  Climbers & their money do tons for the Sherpas and their communities - but that exchange is at gunpoint: Risk your lives for us, or your wives and children go without food & medicine. It's a no-win situation for them, and it's precisely because it's a no-win situation for them that this is morally fraught. First of all, keep in mind that many of the alternatives - like going to build the 2022 World Cup stadium in Qatar - are also dangerous. Even the safe ones involve spending your life in a foreign country away from your family (often including your wife and kids), & having to learn a completely new language. For a lot of Sherpas, that's not even an option, since they're needed in their village for the crop seasons. At best, they have a set of ugly options to pick from. Secondly, telling someone who has no financial security "I'll pay you to risk your life for me" is very different from telling someone who has money. The US military recruits heavily from the poor - and in fact that might be one of the most significant factors (http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=soc http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&cont...). Is it fair that simply because someone was born into a lower standing, they have fewer options to live a safe life? The morality of that question alters drastically when you offer universal basic income. As for moving to the US... that's also just not a possibility for 99% of Sherpas. Literacy & education rates are low, therefore so is knowledge about the visa systems (the main one they'd be eligible for is the diversity visa, which is a long-shot lottery anyway), not to mention the obvious language barrier. By design, immigration could only work out for a fraction of the population. Plus, a lot of them probably don't want to leave their family and culture behind. There's maybe 10,000 Nepalese in the US, and most of them from Kathmandu or the southern areas, which are culturally pretty different.
massysett 11y ago
> the Sherpas might have moved to cities, to India, or even to America if that opportunity hadn't materialized. They still can move to cities, to India, to America. At least, the availability of rich tourists does not stop them from doing those things. They are certainly no worse off because rich people need labor on Everest.
- rdtsc 11y ago
  > They still can move to cities, to India, to America. Yap. Nevermind, at least US is not a place you just "move to".
honua 11y ago
The replies to your post are saying that they (Sherpas) still have the choice to move to India or America. While that's true it feels too technical. The whole picture needs to be seen - that the influence of the economy around climbing is strong enough for the choice of moving vs guiding expeditions to not be equal. Consider too the original point of the article - the Sherpas are being wage abused relative to the risk they endure.
- meric 11y ago
  If Sherpas are on the whole choosing to guide expeditions in preference to other choices, who are we to tell them they're making the wrong choice in life? Is it because we know more about the risks of mountain climbing, and the compensation they receive for taking that risk, than they themselves do? Is it moral for me to analyse your life of bad habits, of my own judgement, and plan a better life, also of my own judgement, for you?
  - kaitai 11y ago
    Ah, the false freedom of "it's their choice!" A fine way of avoiding the conversation. The guy in the article brings up a conversation he had with some Sherpa in which the Sherpa says he is making the choice between risking his life and feeding his family. That's the point here. Are you going to tell the Sherpa he can't even have the conversation because he made his choice and so he gave up his right to talk about it? I'm glad all these HN commenters recognize that these folks made an economic decision and that there are other ones possible, like moving to Delhi to be a doorman or Dubai to do construction. Now that we've gotten the obvious out of the way can we get to the interesting conversation, that of what these choices are driven by? This isn't a question of the morality of analyzing bad habits. It's like ending a conversation on heroin deaths among white rural Americans by saying that they made a choice, or saying that those girls in Nigeria kidnapped by Boko Haram made a choice by going to school. All things happen as a result of an interaction between choice and chance. To make this conversation about individual choice is to make it content-free. The content is in what we do in response to the choices we see. The labor movement was a response to exploitation in much of the world: what's the status of the labor movement in Nepal? Many countries have made efforts to diversify their economies when one fragile industry rules: what's the status of economic diversification in Nepal? How strong is the government when it comes to enforcing labor regulations? How are people taking advantage of the tourism industry to support other aspects of Nepali culture and the economy? What causes the fact that other jobs just aren't as remunerative? What about work opportunities for women, since the guides are all men? How much of the economic structure is bound up in how health care and education are delivered, since if those are all family-based then women don't have time to engage in the global workforce? How are connections with the outside world for marketing and shipping exportable goods or commodities? Is there information asymmetry that could be ameliorated to enable the Sherpa to make better economic decisions?
dasil003 11y ago
I think it's wrong-headed to sit here and say what decisions everyone should be making. If someone wants to risk life and limb on Everest, I don't see why all the hand-wringing. The wealth of the Google exec and poverty of the Sherpa are factors in their own decision making process, but in neither case is their freedom compromised. I definitely think the Sherpas are getting screwed financially, and that they should get organized to negotiate and push their rates up. Also, having their safety compromised because of inexperienced and suicidal assholes with oversized egos is something that they should not have to put up with. Over time, even with the wealth disparity, it seems like they should have the clout and be able to develop the right leadership to start asserting these things.
tim333 11y ago
>Sherpas sacrifice their bodies for American entertainment, not because they want to, but because they have to. The Serpas lived got by for a long time before the climbers came and the people in other valleys in Nepal get by. They don't have to work climbing - they do it because it's kind of interesting and pays well. You could easily get westerners to do the Sherpa job if you offered them the same deal but you can't because you'd have to get them $20k climbing permits and probably work permits and the like and the government won't change that because it wants to keep the jobs for the locals.
cdr 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. Maybe they would have developed some marketable crafts or products? Who knows. Everest is their resource curse. Sherpas have way, way more access to America than they would if climbing did not draw so many wealthy Americans to Nepal. In the rural American area I'm from Nepalese restaurants (run by Sherpas) are behind only Mexican and maybe Chinese as far as ethnic restaurants, and all because of connections made with climbers. Some Americans also become interested in the parts of Nepal that don't involve deadly risk and in the Nepalese people. There are architects that take trips to Nepal on their own dime just to volunteer to help improve how buildings are built, engineers that work on better and cheaper stoves, etc. There are obvious downsides, but there are also upsides.
okc 11y ago
>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. There is so much wrong in this statement. Climbing is for everyone, and that includes a rich guy from google and Sherpas. The mountains are the spiritual homeplace for Sherpas, and for climbers. Sure, guides on Everest, deserve far more protection in working conditions but the Sherpa summiteers of Everest I have met, are also incredibly proud of their achievements. Ideally Everest, can provide the opportunity of bringing the west and Asia together in mutual benefit, just like Sherpa Tenzing Norgay and Edmund hilary did.
slgeorge 11y ago
> Are the Sherpas better off with the climbers? Perhaps. I just spent three months in Nepal hiking with ethnic Sherpas guides [0]. Within their communities the high-mountain Sherpa guides are looked up to as brave and strong - they represent many of the endurance and physical capabilities that Sherpa culture values. The high-mountain guides also make the most money, it's a significant amount by local standards: enough to buy a house and provide for your family after a few seasons. It is, however, very dangerous so some families don't want their children to do it - according to the Sherpa's I spoke to. In general, the Sherpa group is one of the most well-off in the country. They're able to afford well-built houses, pay for help with their fields and importantly send their children to school: many Sherpa pay for their children to go to an "English" speaking school because the state-run ones aren't good. Their villages have safe bridges and all through Nepal you'll find bridges that have been put up by a Sherpa group (whose name I've temporarily forgotten). Bridges are important as they connect the high tribes. Overall, I'd say they are well-off, and in fact some Sherpa complain about inflation because other groups know they have more money. I came away with the impression that the imbalance between groups could be a cause for concern. It's important to note that these are high-mountain groups, they live between 2000 and 3500 metres in a landscape where there is some farming, but above a certain height it's basically only good for goats and Yak. It's marginal land, and a tough life of farming. The better living conditions and education standards come from tourist money. It's as simple as that - their significant earning capacity relative to other groups comes from their reputations as fantastic guides (honest, strong and with good English). If there was no money from tourists then the only option would be farming, in my opinion. The Sherpas are better off with the climbers (in my opinion). We can know this because other mountain tribe groups are relatively poorer and they have the opportunities you mentioned to do other things. Other than working abroad [1], the other opportunities are hypothetical. And, in the case of creating "marketable crafts and products" I think that's unrealistic because you're dealing with people whose main aim each year is to have enough food to eat: there's some carpet making but it's really small scale. I didn't do any high mountaineering - I was hiking and camping. The Nepalese I dealt with (Sherpa and other groups) were very happy there are tourists and would love more to go. Of course, for them it's a job - just like the people in the tourist industry anywhere else in the world. Most people aren't going to be climbing high mountains. But Nepal is a beautiful country even if you only view the Himalayas from afar - they're superb. It's a beautiful country to explore, the mountains and landscapes are fantastic, and the people are welcoming and interesting. [0] In Nepal the word Sherpa is used in two ways, in the first it represents the Sherpa tribe (an ethnic (I think) group), in the second it means "a guide". We had ethnic Sherpas who were our guides - Sherpa Sherpa! [1] Many do live abroad but they go alone, without wives and children, as the village where your lands are is a key part of the culture in my understanding.

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.

vacri 11y ago
> What's wrong with allowing the Sherpas to make that choice The parent comment wasn't suggesting that they shouldn't. Doesn't mean we can't discuss our own opinions on the matter.
karmajunkie 11y ago
The question isn't whether we moralize about the dangers they face in a profession they choose from options available to them. It's whether they're paid equitably for the job or are exploited for the benefit of western companies which neither provide adequately for their families in the event of their death nor enforce safeguards to limit their risk to the extent possible.
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
> I would wager there are many boxers out there who disagree. A boxer would say YDKSAB.
ebola1717 11y ago
Climbers & their money do tons for the Sherpas and their communities - but that exchange is at gunpoint: Risk your lives for us, or your wives and children go without food & medicine. It's a no-win situation for them, and it's precisely because it's a no-win situation for them that this is morally fraught. First of all, keep in mind that many of the alternatives - like going to build the 2022 World Cup stadium in Qatar - are also dangerous. Even the safe ones involve spending your life in a foreign country away from your family (often including your wife and kids), & having to learn a completely new language. For a lot of Sherpas, that's not even an option, since they're needed in their village for the crop seasons. At best, they have a set of ugly options to pick from. Secondly, telling someone who has no financial security "I'll pay you to risk your life for me" is very different from telling someone who has money. The US military recruits heavily from the poor - and in fact that might be one of the most significant factors (http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=soc http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&cont...). Is it fair that simply because someone was born into a lower standing, they have fewer options to live a safe life? The morality of that question alters drastically when you offer universal basic income. As for moving to the US... that's also just not a possibility for 99% of Sherpas. Literacy & education rates are low, therefore so is knowledge about the visa systems (the main one they'd be eligible for is the diversity visa, which is a long-shot lottery anyway), not to mention the obvious language barrier. By design, immigration could only work out for a fraction of the population. Plus, a lot of them probably don't want to leave their family and culture behind. There's maybe 10,000 Nepalese in the US, and most of them from Kathmandu or the southern areas, which are culturally pretty different.

massysett 11y ago

> the Sherpas might have moved to cities, to India, or even to America if that opportunity hadn't materialized. They still can move to cities, to India, to America. At least, the availability of rich tourists does not stop them from doing those things. They are certainly no worse off because rich people need labor on Everest.

rdtsc 11y ago
> They still can move to cities, to India, to America. Yap. Nevermind, at least US is not a place you just "move to".

honua 11y ago

The replies to your post are saying that they (Sherpas) still have the choice to move to India or America. While that's true it feels too technical. The whole picture needs to be seen - that the influence of the economy around climbing is strong enough for the choice of moving vs guiding expeditions to not be equal. Consider too the original point of the article - the Sherpas are being wage abused relative to the risk they endure.

meric 11y ago
If Sherpas are on the whole choosing to guide expeditions in preference to other choices, who are we to tell them they're making the wrong choice in life? Is it because we know more about the risks of mountain climbing, and the compensation they receive for taking that risk, than they themselves do? Is it moral for me to analyse your life of bad habits, of my own judgement, and plan a better life, also of my own judgement, for you?
- kaitai 11y ago
  Ah, the false freedom of "it's their choice!" A fine way of avoiding the conversation. The guy in the article brings up a conversation he had with some Sherpa in which the Sherpa says he is making the choice between risking his life and feeding his family. That's the point here. Are you going to tell the Sherpa he can't even have the conversation because he made his choice and so he gave up his right to talk about it? I'm glad all these HN commenters recognize that these folks made an economic decision and that there are other ones possible, like moving to Delhi to be a doorman or Dubai to do construction. Now that we've gotten the obvious out of the way can we get to the interesting conversation, that of what these choices are driven by? This isn't a question of the morality of analyzing bad habits. It's like ending a conversation on heroin deaths among white rural Americans by saying that they made a choice, or saying that those girls in Nigeria kidnapped by Boko Haram made a choice by going to school. All things happen as a result of an interaction between choice and chance. To make this conversation about individual choice is to make it content-free. The content is in what we do in response to the choices we see. The labor movement was a response to exploitation in much of the world: what's the status of the labor movement in Nepal? Many countries have made efforts to diversify their economies when one fragile industry rules: what's the status of economic diversification in Nepal? How strong is the government when it comes to enforcing labor regulations? How are people taking advantage of the tourism industry to support other aspects of Nepali culture and the economy? What causes the fact that other jobs just aren't as remunerative? What about work opportunities for women, since the guides are all men? How much of the economic structure is bound up in how health care and education are delivered, since if those are all family-based then women don't have time to engage in the global workforce? How are connections with the outside world for marketing and shipping exportable goods or commodities? Is there information asymmetry that could be ameliorated to enable the Sherpa to make better economic decisions?

dasil003 11y ago

I think it's wrong-headed to sit here and say what decisions everyone should be making. If someone wants to risk life and limb on Everest, I don't see why all the hand-wringing. The wealth of the Google exec and poverty of the Sherpa are factors in their own decision making process, but in neither case is their freedom compromised. I definitely think the Sherpas are getting screwed financially, and that they should get organized to negotiate and push their rates up. Also, having their safety compromised because of inexperienced and suicidal assholes with oversized egos is something that they should not have to put up with. Over time, even with the wealth disparity, it seems like they should have the clout and be able to develop the right leadership to start asserting these things.

tim333 11y ago

>Sherpas sacrifice their bodies for American entertainment, not because they want to, but because they have to. The Serpas lived got by for a long time before the climbers came and the people in other valleys in Nepal get by. They don't have to work climbing - they do it because it's kind of interesting and pays well. You could easily get westerners to do the Sherpa job if you offered them the same deal but you can't because you'd have to get them $20k climbing permits and probably work permits and the like and the government won't change that because it wants to keep the jobs for the locals.

cdr 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. Maybe they would have developed some marketable crafts or products? Who knows. Everest is their resource curse. Sherpas have way, way more access to America than they would if climbing did not draw so many wealthy Americans to Nepal. In the rural American area I'm from Nepalese restaurants (run by Sherpas) are behind only Mexican and maybe Chinese as far as ethnic restaurants, and all because of connections made with climbers. Some Americans also become interested in the parts of Nepal that don't involve deadly risk and in the Nepalese people. There are architects that take trips to Nepal on their own dime just to volunteer to help improve how buildings are built, engineers that work on better and cheaper stoves, etc. There are obvious downsides, but there are also upsides.

okc 11y ago

>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. There is so much wrong in this statement. Climbing is for everyone, and that includes a rich guy from google and Sherpas. The mountains are the spiritual homeplace for Sherpas, and for climbers. Sure, guides on Everest, deserve far more protection in working conditions but the Sherpa summiteers of Everest I have met, are also incredibly proud of their achievements. Ideally Everest, can provide the opportunity of bringing the west and Asia together in mutual benefit, just like Sherpa Tenzing Norgay and Edmund hilary did.

slgeorge 11y ago

> Are the Sherpas better off with the climbers? Perhaps. I just spent three months in Nepal hiking with ethnic Sherpas guides [0]. Within their communities the high-mountain Sherpa guides are looked up to as brave and strong - they represent many of the endurance and physical capabilities that Sherpa culture values. The high-mountain guides also make the most money, it's a significant amount by local standards: enough to buy a house and provide for your family after a few seasons. It is, however, very dangerous so some families don't want their children to do it - according to the Sherpa's I spoke to. In general, the Sherpa group is one of the most well-off in the country. They're able to afford well-built houses, pay for help with their fields and importantly send their children to school: many Sherpa pay for their children to go to an "English" speaking school because the state-run ones aren't good. Their villages have safe bridges and all through Nepal you'll find bridges that have been put up by a Sherpa group (whose name I've temporarily forgotten). Bridges are important as they connect the high tribes. Overall, I'd say they are well-off, and in fact some Sherpa complain about inflation because other groups know they have more money. I came away with the impression that the imbalance between groups could be a cause for concern. It's important to note that these are high-mountain groups, they live between 2000 and 3500 metres in a landscape where there is some farming, but above a certain height it's basically only good for goats and Yak. It's marginal land, and a tough life of farming. The better living conditions and education standards come from tourist money. It's as simple as that - their significant earning capacity relative to other groups comes from their reputations as fantastic guides (honest, strong and with good English). If there was no money from tourists then the only option would be farming, in my opinion. The Sherpas are better off with the climbers (in my opinion). We can know this because other mountain tribe groups are relatively poorer and they have the opportunities you mentioned to do other things. Other than working abroad [1], the other opportunities are hypothetical. And, in the case of creating "marketable crafts and products" I think that's unrealistic because you're dealing with people whose main aim each year is to have enough food to eat: there's some carpet making but it's really small scale. I didn't do any high mountaineering - I was hiking and camping. The Nepalese I dealt with (Sherpa and other groups) were very happy there are tourists and would love more to go. Of course, for them it's a job - just like the people in the tourist industry anywhere else in the world. Most people aren't going to be climbing high mountains. But Nepal is a beautiful country even if you only view the Himalayas from afar - they're superb. It's a beautiful country to explore, the mountains and landscapes are fantastic, and the people are welcoming and interesting. [0] In Nepal the word Sherpa is used in two ways, in the first it represents the Sherpa tribe (an ethnic (I think) group), in the second it means "a guide". We had ethnic Sherpas who were our guides - Sherpa Sherpa! [1] Many do live abroad but they go alone, without wives and children, as the village where your lands are is a key part of the culture in my understanding.