5 ms·

Does it really matter if there is trash and dead bodies up there? Who's bothered or poisoned by this? Other rich people? Is there an ecosystem up there?

nstj 9y ago
'rich' people?
- bartread 9y ago
  I tend to agree. A lot of the people who climb Everest, or at least spend a lot of time on the mountain, are Sherpas, who most definitely aren't rich, but I think he's sniping at the others, who cough up for the license to do it, turn up with thousands of pounds worth of kit, etc.
  - elcapitan 9y ago
    If I understand it correctly, a guided Everest tour with all inclusive (equipment, travel, licenses, supplies, basecamp for multiple weeks) is about 100k, so it's definitely not for everybody.
    - nstj 9y ago
      Sure, it's a fair bit of money but what does that have to do with being 'rich'?
has2k1 9y ago
Here is an excerpt from "The Tragedy of the Commons" paper [1] """ The pollution problem is a consequence of population. It did not much matter how a lonely American frontiersman disposed of his waste. "Flowing water purifies itself every 10 miles," my grandfather used to say, and the myth was near enough to the truth when he was a boy, for there were not too many people. But as population became denser, the natural chemical and biological recycling processes became overloaded, calling for a redefinition of property rights. """ The excerpt seems to convey the same opinion, but if read the paper you get to see it from many more view points. 1. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full
- wodenokoto 9y ago
  That doesn't answer the question, except if you are implying that populations are going to move to Everest in the future.
  - has2k1 9y ago
    Can you imagine a scenario in the future where there would be a need to do an activity at the summit of Everest?
    - nradov 9y ago
      Waterworld?
    - wodenokoto 9y ago
      No, I can't. What is your point?
      - has2k1 9y ago
        Without significant effort, we are not so good at a judging what resources that are not essential now yet will be in the future. Even the example, I'm going to give is lacking because it is rooted in today's technological activities. For example, how would the stuff left on Everest affect the remote sensing requirements of the future? Perhaps there is more, but we cannot have thoughts about the questions we do not know to how to ask yet. This view point should not be straw-maned as objecting to any and everything, it is simply cautionary. In summary, in coming to conclusions we have to factor in our lack of sufficient imagination.
calvano915 9y ago
If you have respect for others who wish to experience the environment as close to "natural" as possible, then you clean up after yourself or pay for someone else to.

nstj 9y ago

'rich' people?

bartread 9y ago
I tend to agree. A lot of the people who climb Everest, or at least spend a lot of time on the mountain, are Sherpas, who most definitely aren't rich, but I think he's sniping at the others, who cough up for the license to do it, turn up with thousands of pounds worth of kit, etc.
- elcapitan 9y ago
  If I understand it correctly, a guided Everest tour with all inclusive (equipment, travel, licenses, supplies, basecamp for multiple weeks) is about 100k, so it's definitely not for everybody.
  - nstj 9y ago
    Sure, it's a fair bit of money but what does that have to do with being 'rich'?

has2k1 9y ago

Here is an excerpt from "The Tragedy of the Commons" paper [1] """ The pollution problem is a consequence of population. It did not much matter how a lonely American frontiersman disposed of his waste. "Flowing water purifies itself every 10 miles," my grandfather used to say, and the myth was near enough to the truth when he was a boy, for there were not too many people. But as population became denser, the natural chemical and biological recycling processes became overloaded, calling for a redefinition of property rights. """ The excerpt seems to convey the same opinion, but if read the paper you get to see it from many more view points. 1. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full

wodenokoto 9y ago
That doesn't answer the question, except if you are implying that populations are going to move to Everest in the future.
- has2k1 9y ago
  Can you imagine a scenario in the future where there would be a need to do an activity at the summit of Everest?
  - nradov 9y ago
    Waterworld?
  - wodenokoto 9y ago
    No, I can't. What is your point?
    - has2k1 9y ago
      Without significant effort, we are not so good at a judging what resources that are not essential now yet will be in the future. Even the example, I'm going to give is lacking because it is rooted in today's technological activities. For example, how would the stuff left on Everest affect the remote sensing requirements of the future? Perhaps there is more, but we cannot have thoughts about the questions we do not know to how to ask yet. This view point should not be straw-maned as objecting to any and everything, it is simply cautionary. In summary, in coming to conclusions we have to factor in our lack of sufficient imagination.

calvano915 9y ago

If you have respect for others who wish to experience the environment as close to "natural" as possible, then you clean up after yourself or pay for someone else to.