4 ms·

I've always thought of "climbing Mount Everest" as being a literal figure of speech for something incredibly difficult and potentially very dangerous. Why do t

I've always thought of "climbing Mount Everest" as being a literal figure of speech for something incredibly difficult and potentially very dangerous. Why do these people think it's going to be anything less than that?

9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
Because most of these people are accustomed to throwing money at people to solve their problems.
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  That’s probably it. Also, there are climbers who do it for the love of climbing but for most of these people it’s something to brag about. “ Not only am I better because I am rich but I am also physically better and I do harder things than you.”
  - briandear 7y ago
    It seems like many of the debates on HN seem to quickly devolve into classism. I am pretty sure not many people have ever met an Everest climber, let alone got to know any in order to make these sweeping generalizations.
    - maxxxxx 7y ago
      I have talked to a guy who had climbed Mount Everest that way. He had the goal of climbing all the highest peaks on all continents and Everest was one of them. He also came from a wealthy family. He had the time and money to put in the time preparing and then paying >50k for the Everest climb. Who can afford this money and taking off months for an expedition? From what I have read Everest climbers are either basically very poor people who put all they have into climbing or they are rich enough to take time off and pay for that hobby. For a regular guy with a regular job it’s very difficult to do.
      - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
        A lot of 8000-meter-plus climbers are ordinary middle-class people. The huge expenses of getting to the Himalayas, paying for permits and gear are covered by sponsorships. In some small European countries, no one from there has yet climbed Everest, Nanga Parbat etc. without supplementary oxygen. That means any expedition will get big coverage in national media, and consequently it is easy to obtain sponsorship from local subsidiaries of multinationals (e.g. Pepsi, Johnny Walker, etc.)
        maxxxxx 7y ago
        "In some small European countries, no one from there has yet climbed Everest, Nanga Parbat etc. without supplementary oxygen." Isn't that a totally different level? I thought most paid climbers use oxygen.
- briandear 7y ago
  Many of “these people,” are normal people that saved up for years to be able to do this. It isn’t just a bunch of ultra rich people “throwing money.” There are definitely some “climbers” in the category of “shouldn’t be there,” but characterizing Everest climbers as a bunch of spoiled rich people is unfair. Many people spend $100k+ on a Tesla, others might drive a used Honda and instead prioritize climbing big mountains. Let’s not paint the entire mountain with such a broad brush. The real problem is how Nepal issues permits. The Chinese side isn’t like the Nepal side.
joering2 7y ago
Because rich people in general got used to solving their problems by throwing more money at the issue they face. Everest is no different. Assumption is that even if I am unexperienced, if I buy the most expensive equipment, and get the most expensive sherpa then two weeks later sipping Mojitos on my yacht I can tell averyone “yeah I climbed Mount Everest, no big deal”.
actuator 7y ago
Because of how it is sold by some of the expedition organizers. Climbing Everest gives you the distinction of climbing the highest mountain in the world and if you have money it can provide good safety to you. So, a lot of people who aren't particularly well trained also try it. Everest is definitely made easier by sherpas compared to some other mountains. Kanchenjunga, Annapurna and K2 for example are much harder and have high fatality rate despite attracting experienced climbers mostly. If memory serves me right, they have a fatality rate of about 30%.
- bitL 7y ago
  They used to have higher fatality rate in the beginning, then with new equipment, techniques and less-reckless approach fatality rate dropped significantly, as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander There are death rates between 1950-2012 and since 2012, you can see a huge drop, e.g. Annapurna from 32% to 4%.
  - actuator 7y ago
    According to this[1], Kanchenjunga has about 22% fatality rate since 1990, can't find a newer stat. This[1] article mentions 220 climbs so far so it doesn't look like the attempts have increased a lot. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150923175946/http://mentalfloss.com/article/30757/5-mountains-deadlier-everest https://web.archive.org/web/20150923175946/http://mentalflos... [2] http://www.teamwilcovanrooijen.nl/dont-climb-kanchenjunga/ http://www.teamwilcovanrooijen.nl/dont-climb-kanchenjunga/
    - bitL 7y ago
      Yes, Kanchnenjunga is the only mountain where recently fatality rate increased and less than 250 climbers made it to the top. Seems like that is the ultimate challenge these days. Do you want to try? ;-)
      - actuator 7y ago
        Not Kanchenjunga, definitely. :) I don't think I have the will to attempt any eight thousander right now. I will see if I can transition to 7k first.

9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago

Because most of these people are accustomed to throwing money at people to solve their problems.

maxxxxx 7y ago
That’s probably it. Also, there are climbers who do it for the love of climbing but for most of these people it’s something to brag about. “ Not only am I better because I am rich but I am also physically better and I do harder things than you.”
- briandear 7y ago
  It seems like many of the debates on HN seem to quickly devolve into classism. I am pretty sure not many people have ever met an Everest climber, let alone got to know any in order to make these sweeping generalizations.
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    I have talked to a guy who had climbed Mount Everest that way. He had the goal of climbing all the highest peaks on all continents and Everest was one of them. He also came from a wealthy family. He had the time and money to put in the time preparing and then paying >50k for the Everest climb. Who can afford this money and taking off months for an expedition? From what I have read Everest climbers are either basically very poor people who put all they have into climbing or they are rich enough to take time off and pay for that hobby. For a regular guy with a regular job it’s very difficult to do.
    - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
      A lot of 8000-meter-plus climbers are ordinary middle-class people. The huge expenses of getting to the Himalayas, paying for permits and gear are covered by sponsorships. In some small European countries, no one from there has yet climbed Everest, Nanga Parbat etc. without supplementary oxygen. That means any expedition will get big coverage in national media, and consequently it is easy to obtain sponsorship from local subsidiaries of multinationals (e.g. Pepsi, Johnny Walker, etc.)
      - maxxxxx 7y ago
        "In some small European countries, no one from there has yet climbed Everest, Nanga Parbat etc. without supplementary oxygen." Isn't that a totally different level? I thought most paid climbers use oxygen.
briandear 7y ago
Many of “these people,” are normal people that saved up for years to be able to do this. It isn’t just a bunch of ultra rich people “throwing money.” There are definitely some “climbers” in the category of “shouldn’t be there,” but characterizing Everest climbers as a bunch of spoiled rich people is unfair. Many people spend $100k+ on a Tesla, others might drive a used Honda and instead prioritize climbing big mountains. Let’s not paint the entire mountain with such a broad brush. The real problem is how Nepal issues permits. The Chinese side isn’t like the Nepal side.

joering2 7y ago

Because rich people in general got used to solving their problems by throwing more money at the issue they face. Everest is no different. Assumption is that even if I am unexperienced, if I buy the most expensive equipment, and get the most expensive sherpa then two weeks later sipping Mojitos on my yacht I can tell averyone “yeah I climbed Mount Everest, no big deal”.

actuator 7y ago

Because of how it is sold by some of the expedition organizers. Climbing Everest gives you the distinction of climbing the highest mountain in the world and if you have money it can provide good safety to you. So, a lot of people who aren't particularly well trained also try it. Everest is definitely made easier by sherpas compared to some other mountains. Kanchenjunga, Annapurna and K2 for example are much harder and have high fatality rate despite attracting experienced climbers mostly. If memory serves me right, they have a fatality rate of about 30%.

bitL 7y ago
They used to have higher fatality rate in the beginning, then with new equipment, techniques and less-reckless approach fatality rate dropped significantly, as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander There are death rates between 1950-2012 and since 2012, you can see a huge drop, e.g. Annapurna from 32% to 4%.
- actuator 7y ago
  According to this[1], Kanchenjunga has about 22% fatality rate since 1990, can't find a newer stat. This[1] article mentions 220 climbs so far so it doesn't look like the attempts have increased a lot. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150923175946/http://mentalfloss.com/article/30757/5-mountains-deadlier-everest https://web.archive.org/web/20150923175946/http://mentalflos... [2] http://www.teamwilcovanrooijen.nl/dont-climb-kanchenjunga/ http://www.teamwilcovanrooijen.nl/dont-climb-kanchenjunga/
  - bitL 7y ago
    Yes, Kanchnenjunga is the only mountain where recently fatality rate increased and less than 250 climbers made it to the top. Seems like that is the ultimate challenge these days. Do you want to try? ;-)
    - actuator 7y ago
      Not Kanchenjunga, definitely. :) I don't think I have the will to attempt any eight thousander right now. I will see if I can transition to 7k first.