6 ms·

I was a nope before, but now it's a double nope. Asphyxiating or freezing to death because of a crush of people pretending to be Edmund Hillary seems like a big

I was a nope before, but now it's a double nope. Asphyxiating or freezing to death because of a crush of people pretending to be Edmund Hillary seems like a big waste to me.

mc32 7y ago
True. They should have a limited number of slots and choose via lottery. That said, according to the article, these ascensions only happen two or three days a year. So it’s not like there are 200 people summitting every day. It only happens in very rare spurts when the weather is favorable, which is around 1% of the days.
freewilly1040 7y ago
Why disparage the climbers? Getting to the top of Everest is an impressive accomplishment.
- Waterluvian 7y ago
  I read that some of them are basically babysat the way up and put everyone in danger just by existing there.
  - whamlastxmas 7y ago
    Sounds like life in general
- jonhendry18 7y ago
  Not anymore.
- roymurdock 7y ago
  More of a wealth marker than anything else (who else can pay $45k-130k and take months off work to prep?) It used to be one team was allowed a permit per year, but has since evolved to be a tourist mecca: http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2018/12/17/how-much-does-it-cost-to-climb-mount-everest-2019-edition/ http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2018/12/17/how-much-does-it-...
- crikli 7y ago
  Getting to the top of Everest without supplemental oxygen and without relying on fixed lines is an impressive accomplishment. Getting to the top of Everest by jumaring up fixed lines while sucking down 3x the volume of oxygen Hillary and Norgay used is high risk tourism.
- paganel 7y ago
  Staying on top of your bills in an adverse economical environment like ours is really an accomplishment, especially if you add kids to the mix, climbing a piece of rock at the cost of tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for no reason whatsoever is just stupid.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  >Getting to the top of Everest is an impressive accomplishment. It's not technically difficult, it doesn't require a particularly high level of fitness, it's just pointlessly dangerous. A substantial proportion of Everest climbers have negligible mountaineering experience and no real interest in the sport, they just want the bragging rights. You pay your money to an expedition company, you follow their instructions and they get you up to the death zone; whether you make it back to base camp is in the lap of the gods. About one in twenty people don't make it back. The only people I feel sorry for are the Sherpas. This place is not a place of honor... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here... nothing valued is here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_died_climbing_Mount_Everest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_died_climbi...
  - yur50 7y ago
    I am from Nepal. Our sherpas are making good money from it, no need to feel sorry for them. And it is better to keep Everest as a wasp trap. There are plenty of other mountains which are empty in the Himalayas to climb. If people want to pay to die on Everest, I do not care. It is just one mountain. I am happy to let them have bragging rights in return for contribution in our economy.
    - ak39 7y ago
      Great response. The fact the sherpas are indeed making money (better than nothing) is good news. I believe they ought to be making even more insane amounts of money though. I wonder if the overcrowding has now increased the danger factor appeal?
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Getting to the top of Everest is an impressive accomplishment. It's certainly an expenditure of effort and resources, which ought to require a an impressive accomplishment to justify it, but tasks, however expensive and/or difficult, aren't accomplishments, only (at best) the cost paid for accomplishments.
ken 7y ago
Look past the literal. This is a metaphor for what we're all doing to this planet. An action which appears noble when one person does it becomes problematic when a billion people do it. You can opt out of climbing Everest (and most of us do), but almost nobody is opting out of buying electronics, burning fossil fuels, using plastics, etc. Half the people in the USA don't even vote, and a sizable majority of eligible blood donors don't donate -- and those are both free, and make life better in the community in which you live. When we say "Earth is crowded", this is what we mean. We're living in an unscalable and unsustainable manner. We pretend that being just one individual of billions means the bad things we do, or the good things we don't do, aren't really our own fault.
- GuiA 7y ago
  Everybody wants to live a lifestyle that presently requires burning fossil fuel, buying electronics, using plastics, etc. Two possibilities: - technological advancement lets everyone indulge in this lifestyle without those externalities, or ones that are worse - people voluntarily dial down their consumption (of food that has flown from across the world because it’s not in season, of electronics made with rare earth metals, etc), travels, and so on. Both seem extremely unlikely and it’s hard to keep hope.
  - jdietrich 7y ago
    There's a grotesque disparity in per-capita CO2 emissions, even between highly developed nations. America produces 16.5 tonnes per capita, Britain produces 6.5 tonnes, Switzerland produces 4.3 and Latvia produces 3.5. Turning the dial down on our consumption is eminently possible without meaningfully compromising our standard of living, we just need to give a damn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
    - sneak 7y ago
      People, en masse, seem to mostly only care what their mass media channels tell them to care about. That’s not being done in the US for consumption side-effects.
AngryData 7y ago
That is why you gotta bring a paraglider chute. When shit starts to get bad you can just be like "See ya later suckers!" and spectacularly leap off the mountain in James Bond fashion and gently cruise back down to more sane elevations.
- SergeAx 7y ago
  Gotta check if the chute works in this thin air first.

I was a nope before, but now it's a double nope. Asphyxiating or freezing to death because of a crush of people pretending to be Edmund Hillary seems like a big waste to me.

mc32 7y ago

True. They should have a limited number of slots and choose via lottery. That said, according to the article, these ascensions only happen two or three days a year. So it’s not like there are 200 people summitting every day. It only happens in very rare spurts when the weather is favorable, which is around 1% of the days.

freewilly1040 7y ago

Why disparage the climbers? Getting to the top of Everest is an impressive accomplishment.

Waterluvian 7y ago
I read that some of them are basically babysat the way up and put everyone in danger just by existing there.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  Sounds like life in general
jonhendry18 7y ago
Not anymore.
roymurdock 7y ago
More of a wealth marker than anything else (who else can pay $45k-130k and take months off work to prep?) It used to be one team was allowed a permit per year, but has since evolved to be a tourist mecca: http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2018/12/17/how-much-does-it-cost-to-climb-mount-everest-2019-edition/ http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2018/12/17/how-much-does-it-...
crikli 7y ago
Getting to the top of Everest without supplemental oxygen and without relying on fixed lines is an impressive accomplishment. Getting to the top of Everest by jumaring up fixed lines while sucking down 3x the volume of oxygen Hillary and Norgay used is high risk tourism.
paganel 7y ago
Staying on top of your bills in an adverse economical environment like ours is really an accomplishment, especially if you add kids to the mix, climbing a piece of rock at the cost of tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for no reason whatsoever is just stupid.
jdietrich 7y ago
>Getting to the top of Everest is an impressive accomplishment. It's not technically difficult, it doesn't require a particularly high level of fitness, it's just pointlessly dangerous. A substantial proportion of Everest climbers have negligible mountaineering experience and no real interest in the sport, they just want the bragging rights. You pay your money to an expedition company, you follow their instructions and they get you up to the death zone; whether you make it back to base camp is in the lap of the gods. About one in twenty people don't make it back. The only people I feel sorry for are the Sherpas. This place is not a place of honor... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here... nothing valued is here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_died_climbing_Mount_Everest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_died_climbi...
- yur50 7y ago
  I am from Nepal. Our sherpas are making good money from it, no need to feel sorry for them. And it is better to keep Everest as a wasp trap. There are plenty of other mountains which are empty in the Himalayas to climb. If people want to pay to die on Everest, I do not care. It is just one mountain. I am happy to let them have bragging rights in return for contribution in our economy.
  - ak39 7y ago
    Great response. The fact the sherpas are indeed making money (better than nothing) is good news. I believe they ought to be making even more insane amounts of money though. I wonder if the overcrowding has now increased the danger factor appeal?
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Getting to the top of Everest is an impressive accomplishment. It's certainly an expenditure of effort and resources, which ought to require a an impressive accomplishment to justify it, but tasks, however expensive and/or difficult, aren't accomplishments, only (at best) the cost paid for accomplishments.

ken 7y ago

Look past the literal. This is a metaphor for what we're all doing to this planet. An action which appears noble when one person does it becomes problematic when a billion people do it. You can opt out of climbing Everest (and most of us do), but almost nobody is opting out of buying electronics, burning fossil fuels, using plastics, etc. Half the people in the USA don't even vote, and a sizable majority of eligible blood donors don't donate -- and those are both free, and make life better in the community in which you live. When we say "Earth is crowded", this is what we mean. We're living in an unscalable and unsustainable manner. We pretend that being just one individual of billions means the bad things we do, or the good things we don't do, aren't really our own fault.

GuiA 7y ago
Everybody wants to live a lifestyle that presently requires burning fossil fuel, buying electronics, using plastics, etc. Two possibilities: - technological advancement lets everyone indulge in this lifestyle without those externalities, or ones that are worse - people voluntarily dial down their consumption (of food that has flown from across the world because it’s not in season, of electronics made with rare earth metals, etc), travels, and so on. Both seem extremely unlikely and it’s hard to keep hope.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  There's a grotesque disparity in per-capita CO2 emissions, even between highly developed nations. America produces 16.5 tonnes per capita, Britain produces 6.5 tonnes, Switzerland produces 4.3 and Latvia produces 3.5. Turning the dial down on our consumption is eminently possible without meaningfully compromising our standard of living, we just need to give a damn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
  - sneak 7y ago
    People, en masse, seem to mostly only care what their mass media channels tell them to care about. That’s not being done in the US for consumption side-effects.

AngryData 7y ago

That is why you gotta bring a paraglider chute. When shit starts to get bad you can just be like "See ya later suckers!" and spectacularly leap off the mountain in James Bond fashion and gently cruise back down to more sane elevations.

SergeAx 7y ago
Gotta check if the chute works in this thin air first.