3 ms·

I feel like, at this point, climbing Everest is starting to become morally questionable. There has been much reporting that Everest is starting to have a seriou

by OskarS 7y ago

I feel like, at this point, climbing Everest is starting to become morally questionable. There has been much reporting that Everest is starting to have a serious trash problem, as well as having many dead bodies strewn all over the path to the top. Any climber, even the most ethical and concientious, is just going to make these problems worse, as well as making it less safe because of crowding situations like this. If you're thinking of climbing Everest: just don't. Climb some other mountain. There are lots of them. Let's leave this one be.

sneak 7y ago
Leaving trash in a place approximately zero people ever go is morally very similar to leaving trash in a landfill. It doesn’t harm anyone or anything. Why are you so unconcerned about other mountains?
- Fradow 7y ago
  It's not. When you leave trash in a mountain, you leave it upstream from other places. At some point it is going to taint streams and/or go down. There are people leaving downstream who are going to have to leave with the consequences of that trash.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > When you leave trash in a mountain, you leave it upstream from other places. At some point it is going to taint streams and/or go down. There are people leaving downstream who are going to have to leave with the consequences of that trash. This is a stronger argument as to mountains that are low enough to experience snowmelt.
- frankbreetz 7y ago
  Are you suggesting "approximately zero people ever go" to Everest under an article about how Everest is overcrowded?
  - sneak 7y ago
    The article is more about how “500-1000 people per year (<400 tourists, plus hired staff)” is “crowded” for that mountain or particular route. Considering the population of Earth, the scale of human cities, the permanent settlements and residents along the path, and other such factors: yes, that is precisely what I mean.
aileenwu 7y ago
Not only is climbing Everest becoming morally questionable, it's also just not impressive anymore. It used to be quite a feat. Now you're just one in a crowd of instagrammers. If you want to do something impressive, climbing Everest is no longer that thing.
- kzrdude 7y ago
  Some people are impressed by money / spending. And climbing everest means spending a lot.
  - aileenwu 7y ago
    That's true. But buying a Lamborghini and a big mansion would be a quicker and more effective way to show off with wealth.
- Cthulhu_ 7y ago
  It's still not something to be taken lightly, and it will take a lot of training, preparation and equipment to do it.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    So basically a marathon but with enough extra gear and travel expenses that you'll never have have to worry about a poor person saying they did it too.
icebraining 7y ago
How will "the most ethical and concientious" climber contribute to the trash problem? Is there something special about the Everest that makes leaving trash behind inevitable?
- zilian 7y ago
  You should read «Into thin air». It might be a matter of life or deathto carry a few more kg down. Also, you can't help people too tired to make it and dying on the side : you would die with them. They all know it and accept it I guess.
Fricken 7y ago
I don't see what's unethical about it. The only thing you're ruining by going to Everest is the experience of others going up Everest. Locals don't live up there. There's do delicate ecosystem to trample. It's just rock, ice, garbage and a lineup.
- feintruled 7y ago
  That's a very interesting viewpoint on the matter. Previously I had just nodded along with the "Everest getting spoiled" stories, but you have made me think a little deeper, so thanks! I wonder if a lot of these appeals for people to stop climbing Everest are from climbers who want everyone ELSE to stop climbing Everest.
  - myself248 7y ago
    I've never had any desire to climb Everest. Got my sights set on Olympus Mons...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- OskarS 7y ago
  It is one of the great wonders of the natural world, and it is a place that many people hold to be very special. It is, in a way, an almost "sacred" place, in a weird secular sense. It is not just any other mountain. There's a reason people are queueing up to see the summit. Maybe I'm a crazy person, but I think that we have a moral obligation to protect the great natural wonders of the world. You can visit them, sure, but only if you do so in a responsible way that ensures their preservation. I do not see how that's possible with Everest any more. History has shown that there is no way to guarantee that you will not be forced (by circumstance alone) to leave trash on the mountain. That trash, by the way, will become essentially unrecoverable: it will likely be there for decades or centuries. Same thing with your human body: if you want to risk your life, that's fine. If you want to drag others into your idiotic quest to pretend to be Edmund Hillary, that is also fine (as long as they do so full consent and knowing the risks). What is not fine is that if you do die, your body will be essentially unrecoverable, and it will also litter the mountain for decades or centuries. If you care AT ALL about preserving Everest (and I suspect most people do), I claim there's no morally permissible way to climb this mountain. Leave it alone. Go climb something where you can make sure you can take your refuse with you, and where your dead corpse can be recovered.
lagadu 7y ago
> If you're thinking of climbing Everest: just don't. Climb some other mountain. There are lots of them. Let's leave this one be. No. That is ridiculous, I have as much right to climb it as anyone else, if it pleases me I'll do it. Like you said, there are lots of mountains so I can choose this particular one like I would any other.
- OskarS 7y ago
  You do not own Mount Everest, you have no right to it. I don't know why you think this, but that is delusional. You can go there because the Nepal allows it, but it is in no way your "right" to do so. Becoming an adult is recognizing you cannot do every thing that pleases you. Besides, I was speaking in a moral sense, not a legal sense. What your rights are is not a relevant question. If preserving natural wonders is not a moral prerogative for you, then we're just going to have to disagree on that point.
  - lagadu 7y ago
    I meant moral right too, of course the country has the right to regulate who and when anyone gets to visit. Thankfully as of the time of this post they're fine with you and I going there. That said: our morals are clearly different and I will do nothing but mock any attempts of any individual to impose their morals on anyone else.
  - clarky07 7y ago
    If everyone stops climbing it, who are we saving it for? Who is going to see the natural wonder? I certainly agree that we should do the best we can to preserve it and others like it, but it doesn't really make sense to say, well no one should go there so that it stays nice. Who cares if it's nice if no one can go there?
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 7y ago
    And what right do you have to ask him to not climb it? It's one thing to ask for consideration, it's another to sermonize about how others are delusional while engaging in the same obnoxious behavior yourself. On a broader topic, the fact that it happens to be geographically located in Nepal does give the country the legal right to dictate who visits it, but let's not delude ourself into thinking that translates into a moral right. The Everest belongs to all of humanity, it's a physical feature and if you want to make it sound like everyone's responsibility, it ought to be considered everyone's asset too.
discordance 7y ago
From an environmental standpoint I would prefer if tourists stick to Everest and its well trodden path. It has decent infrastructure and confines the the strewn dead bodies, trash and tourists to one place. Keep our faeces/species contained.
bunderbunder 7y ago
> If you're thinking of climbing Everest: just don't. Climb some other mountain. There are lots of them. Let's leave this one be. There are lots of them, but among ones over 8,000 meters tall, Everest is reportedly one of the safest and least difficult to climb. The best routes for shuttling people to the top are well-known and about as well-groomed as is possible at that altitude. It's already littered with tattered ropes and spent oxygen bottles and, yes, dead bodies. And there is a decent amount of industry built up around the operation. Many people's livelihoods are based on it. Sending people to other mountains would not increase safety, it would spread the pollution to other places, it would leave the more serious high-altitude mountaineers with fewer mountains to call their own, and it would probably still not be all that effective at diverting the mess away from Everest itself, because everyone knows that Everest's summit is the top.
randyrand 7y ago
I don't recommend it. This mountain is much easier than many others because of all the other people, support, & development around it. It's the Disneyland of mountaineering. If you get into hot water on Everest, you are in a MUCH better scenario than getting into hot water on the 5th tallest mountain.

by OskarS 7y ago

sneak 7y ago

Leaving trash in a place approximately zero people ever go is morally very similar to leaving trash in a landfill. It doesn’t harm anyone or anything. Why are you so unconcerned about other mountains?

Fradow 7y ago
It's not. When you leave trash in a mountain, you leave it upstream from other places. At some point it is going to taint streams and/or go down. There are people leaving downstream who are going to have to leave with the consequences of that trash.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > When you leave trash in a mountain, you leave it upstream from other places. At some point it is going to taint streams and/or go down. There are people leaving downstream who are going to have to leave with the consequences of that trash. This is a stronger argument as to mountains that are low enough to experience snowmelt.
frankbreetz 7y ago
Are you suggesting "approximately zero people ever go" to Everest under an article about how Everest is overcrowded?
- sneak 7y ago
  The article is more about how “500-1000 people per year (<400 tourists, plus hired staff)” is “crowded” for that mountain or particular route. Considering the population of Earth, the scale of human cities, the permanent settlements and residents along the path, and other such factors: yes, that is precisely what I mean.

aileenwu 7y ago

Not only is climbing Everest becoming morally questionable, it's also just not impressive anymore. It used to be quite a feat. Now you're just one in a crowd of instagrammers. If you want to do something impressive, climbing Everest is no longer that thing.

kzrdude 7y ago
Some people are impressed by money / spending. And climbing everest means spending a lot.
- aileenwu 7y ago
  That's true. But buying a Lamborghini and a big mansion would be a quicker and more effective way to show off with wealth.
Cthulhu_ 7y ago
It's still not something to be taken lightly, and it will take a lot of training, preparation and equipment to do it.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  So basically a marathon but with enough extra gear and travel expenses that you'll never have have to worry about a poor person saying they did it too.

icebraining 7y ago

How will "the most ethical and concientious" climber contribute to the trash problem? Is there something special about the Everest that makes leaving trash behind inevitable?

zilian 7y ago
You should read «Into thin air». It might be a matter of life or deathto carry a few more kg down. Also, you can't help people too tired to make it and dying on the side : you would die with them. They all know it and accept it I guess.

Fricken 7y ago

I don't see what's unethical about it. The only thing you're ruining by going to Everest is the experience of others going up Everest. Locals don't live up there. There's do delicate ecosystem to trample. It's just rock, ice, garbage and a lineup.

feintruled 7y ago
That's a very interesting viewpoint on the matter. Previously I had just nodded along with the "Everest getting spoiled" stories, but you have made me think a little deeper, so thanks! I wonder if a lot of these appeals for people to stop climbing Everest are from climbers who want everyone ELSE to stop climbing Everest.
- myself248 7y ago
  I've never had any desire to climb Everest. Got my sights set on Olympus Mons...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
OskarS 7y ago
It is one of the great wonders of the natural world, and it is a place that many people hold to be very special. It is, in a way, an almost "sacred" place, in a weird secular sense. It is not just any other mountain. There's a reason people are queueing up to see the summit. Maybe I'm a crazy person, but I think that we have a moral obligation to protect the great natural wonders of the world. You can visit them, sure, but only if you do so in a responsible way that ensures their preservation. I do not see how that's possible with Everest any more. History has shown that there is no way to guarantee that you will not be forced (by circumstance alone) to leave trash on the mountain. That trash, by the way, will become essentially unrecoverable: it will likely be there for decades or centuries. Same thing with your human body: if you want to risk your life, that's fine. If you want to drag others into your idiotic quest to pretend to be Edmund Hillary, that is also fine (as long as they do so full consent and knowing the risks). What is not fine is that if you do die, your body will be essentially unrecoverable, and it will also litter the mountain for decades or centuries. If you care AT ALL about preserving Everest (and I suspect most people do), I claim there's no morally permissible way to climb this mountain. Leave it alone. Go climb something where you can make sure you can take your refuse with you, and where your dead corpse can be recovered.

lagadu 7y ago

> If you're thinking of climbing Everest: just don't. Climb some other mountain. There are lots of them. Let's leave this one be. No. That is ridiculous, I have as much right to climb it as anyone else, if it pleases me I'll do it. Like you said, there are lots of mountains so I can choose this particular one like I would any other.

OskarS 7y ago
You do not own Mount Everest, you have no right to it. I don't know why you think this, but that is delusional. You can go there because the Nepal allows it, but it is in no way your "right" to do so. Becoming an adult is recognizing you cannot do every thing that pleases you. Besides, I was speaking in a moral sense, not a legal sense. What your rights are is not a relevant question. If preserving natural wonders is not a moral prerogative for you, then we're just going to have to disagree on that point.
- lagadu 7y ago
  I meant moral right too, of course the country has the right to regulate who and when anyone gets to visit. Thankfully as of the time of this post they're fine with you and I going there. That said: our morals are clearly different and I will do nothing but mock any attempts of any individual to impose their morals on anyone else.
- clarky07 7y ago
  If everyone stops climbing it, who are we saving it for? Who is going to see the natural wonder? I certainly agree that we should do the best we can to preserve it and others like it, but it doesn't really make sense to say, well no one should go there so that it stays nice. Who cares if it's nice if no one can go there?
- kinkrtyavimoodh 7y ago
  And what right do you have to ask him to not climb it? It's one thing to ask for consideration, it's another to sermonize about how others are delusional while engaging in the same obnoxious behavior yourself. On a broader topic, the fact that it happens to be geographically located in Nepal does give the country the legal right to dictate who visits it, but let's not delude ourself into thinking that translates into a moral right. The Everest belongs to all of humanity, it's a physical feature and if you want to make it sound like everyone's responsibility, it ought to be considered everyone's asset too.

discordance 7y ago

From an environmental standpoint I would prefer if tourists stick to Everest and its well trodden path. It has decent infrastructure and confines the the strewn dead bodies, trash and tourists to one place. Keep our faeces/species contained.

bunderbunder 7y ago

> If you're thinking of climbing Everest: just don't. Climb some other mountain. There are lots of them. Let's leave this one be. There are lots of them, but among ones over 8,000 meters tall, Everest is reportedly one of the safest and least difficult to climb. The best routes for shuttling people to the top are well-known and about as well-groomed as is possible at that altitude. It's already littered with tattered ropes and spent oxygen bottles and, yes, dead bodies. And there is a decent amount of industry built up around the operation. Many people's livelihoods are based on it. Sending people to other mountains would not increase safety, it would spread the pollution to other places, it would leave the more serious high-altitude mountaineers with fewer mountains to call their own, and it would probably still not be all that effective at diverting the mess away from Everest itself, because everyone knows that Everest's summit is the top.

randyrand 7y ago

I don't recommend it. This mountain is much easier than many others because of all the other people, support, & development around it. It's the Disneyland of mountaineering. If you get into hot water on Everest, you are in a MUCH better scenario than getting into hot water on the 5th tallest mountain.