4 ms·
I haven’t read the current rationale but one thing I’ve read is that Everest is _crowded_. This is OK when everything is moving along ok, but when something goe
by look_lookatme 9y ago
I haven’t read the current rationale but one thing I’ve read is that Everest is _crowded_. This is OK when everything is moving along ok, but when something goes wrong it can be catastrophic for the climbers in front and behind you. I imagine it’s likely that solo climbers have higher incidents of accidents on Everest than group climbers.
As far as why waste money.. if you are asking that question in earnest there’s probably not a rationale that could convince you as to why. So I’ll abstain.
- WalterBright 9y agoIt's not just a waste of money. Climbing Everest, even with oxygen, produces permanent brain damage.
- danaur 9y agoInterested in this, where did you read/hear this?
- felipelemos 9y agoEvidence of brain damage after high-altitude climbing by means of magnetic resonance imaging. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16443427/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16443427/
- WalterBright 9y ago"Into Thin Air" by Krakauer. I've seen it other places, too.
- steveax 9y agoIf you wanted to reduce the crowds on Everest, you’d ban guided climbs, not solo climbs. Solo climbing big mountains is rarified territory that attracts relatively few participants.
- chimeracoder 9y ago> f you wanted to reduce the crowds on Everest, you’d ban guided climbs, not solo climbs. Solo climbing big mountains is rarified territory that attracts relatively few participants. It's not about reducing the crowds; it's about reducing the risk that solo climbers pose to the crowds.