3 ms·
> he brings a keen insight into the morals of high-altitude climbing from the point of view of the "one that was left behind" I got curious and read a wikipedi
by golergka 9y ago
> he brings a keen insight into the morals of high-altitude climbing from the point of view of the "one that was left behind"
I got curious and read a wikipedia article about the book; from the summary, I don't see any special "morals" about the incident: one mountaineer had a reason to believe another one dead and saved himself, without knowingly leaving anyone behind. Is wikipedia summary incorrect?
- elcapitan 9y agoI think the questionable (in terms of traditional mountaineering ethics, I guess) was that Simon Yates had to cut off his partners rope. It's probably the pragmatic thing to do there, but that was definitely the part that was discussed afterwards. He had to assume that he was dead after that, that part was never questioned. On the other hand, he stayed at their basecamp for a prolonged time (if I remember it correctly), which in the end helped Joe, who crawled back there through the glacier with his broken bones and almost dead from dehydration. So he still somehow believed in the miracle that happened.
- fergie 9y agoYou should read the book.