5 ms·

> 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,

by 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.
- LordKano 11y ago
  Climbers & their money do tons for the Sherpas and their communities - but that exchange is at gunpoint I have a big problem with characterizing it thusly. The Sherpas lived and died in Nepal for thousands of years before the arrival of western adventure seekers. A people continuing to live in the same manner as their ancestors isn't the worst thing in the world, especially if that's what those people want. We can best raise standards of living for people around the world by engaging in trade with them. We bring a lot of western problems, like obesity and heart disease but we also bring western solutions, like medical care and abundant food sources. The morality of that question alters drastically when you offer universal basic income. If there's a morality question with, as you describe it, offering opportunities at gunpoint; how can there not be morality questions with taking tax money from others, actually at gunpoint? There's also the cultural imperialism that's implicit in your scenario. Why would we assume that most Nepalese want to come to the US? If travel and trade boosts their standard of living, because of their voluntary participation, that's a good thing.
landryraccoon 11y ago
They ought to build a combination of cable cars and heated reinforced concrete tunnels to the summit. There should be a Starbucks at the top. That couldn't possibly be less of a desecration than leaving increasing piles of dead human bodies and discarded oxygen bottles year after year.
- anon4 11y ago
  But the tunnel should be a bit scraggly with fake indoor snow to simulate the experience of actually climbing Everest.
rawTruthHurts 11y ago
> What's wrong with allowing the Sherpas to make that choice, instead of us moralizers This point is exactly why I'm ok with sweatshops. Choosing assembling piececes for an iPhone instead of receiving an education is a perfectly valid option.
- rodw 11y ago
  Apologies for invoking Poe's Law, but you mean that sarcastically, right?
  - rawTruthHurts 11y ago
    No apology needed since you're completely right.

by sirsar 11y ago

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.

LordKano 11y ago
Climbers & their money do tons for the Sherpas and their communities - but that exchange is at gunpoint I have a big problem with characterizing it thusly. The Sherpas lived and died in Nepal for thousands of years before the arrival of western adventure seekers. A people continuing to live in the same manner as their ancestors isn't the worst thing in the world, especially if that's what those people want. We can best raise standards of living for people around the world by engaging in trade with them. We bring a lot of western problems, like obesity and heart disease but we also bring western solutions, like medical care and abundant food sources. The morality of that question alters drastically when you offer universal basic income. If there's a morality question with, as you describe it, offering opportunities at gunpoint; how can there not be morality questions with taking tax money from others, actually at gunpoint? There's also the cultural imperialism that's implicit in your scenario. Why would we assume that most Nepalese want to come to the US? If travel and trade boosts their standard of living, because of their voluntary participation, that's a good thing.

landryraccoon 11y ago

They ought to build a combination of cable cars and heated reinforced concrete tunnels to the summit. There should be a Starbucks at the top. That couldn't possibly be less of a desecration than leaving increasing piles of dead human bodies and discarded oxygen bottles year after year.

anon4 11y ago
But the tunnel should be a bit scraggly with fake indoor snow to simulate the experience of actually climbing Everest.

rawTruthHurts 11y ago

> What's wrong with allowing the Sherpas to make that choice, instead of us moralizers This point is exactly why I'm ok with sweatshops. Choosing assembling piececes for an iPhone instead of receiving an education is a perfectly valid option.

rodw 11y ago
Apologies for invoking Poe's Law, but you mean that sarcastically, right?
- rawTruthHurts 11y ago
  No apology needed since you're completely right.