3 ms·

They may be culturally and physically acclimatized to mountains in every way, but not likely to the notion of 'mountaineering/climbing' in the romantic sense.

by jariel 6y ago

They may be culturally and physically acclimatized to mountains in every way, but not likely to the notion of 'mountaineering/climbing' in the romantic sense. After all it serves no purpose, requires development of new tech, money etc.. I don't think anyone doubts they couldn't have done it long ago were some local ruler to have made it a priority. I wonder if they thought the original European 'explorers' to be completely mad. So that leaves the question: the mountains were 'right there' and they had innate ability, so why didn't they 'just do it', and have the routes all mapped out for centuries already? Is I think the rhetorical question that unpacks a lot of things.

sebmellen 6y ago
That is an interesting question. I think the most obvious answer is that exploration is predicated on a certain level of technological advancement, below which it is completely unreasonable. If you don't have a food surplus and some academic establishment and governance and trade routes, exploration is an unreasonable vanity project. Guns, Germs, and Steel grazes this topic. As Nepal develops further, I expect to see more of these sorts of headlines.
- beerandt 6y ago
  Let's not dismiss nation-state exploration with having an overly indulgent hobby. Establishing and mapping boundaries, demonstrating military abilities, and even finding/protecting the trade routes you speak of, all required exploration on a large scale. Not to mention things like establishing trade and a friendly presence with locals, establishing surveillance posts, and my personal favorite, surveying the geoid, as a means to better ICBM guidance. Military always makes reason, and I suspect that might also be at play in Nepal.
- spanktheuser 6y ago
  It’s also predicated on the existence of an economy which provides ample leisure for some while others labor ceaselessly at the edges of poverty. There’s a reason the Indian sub-continent lacked a food surplus, academic establishments, strong governance etc. Great Britain looted an estimated $45 billion from its Indian colonies during the 173 years of its rule.
- jariel 6y ago
  The Indian subcontinent was very wealthy on the whole, and also extremely unequal, there are innumerable testaments to that. See: Taj Mahal etc. Very poor on a 'per-capita' basis but with unlimited labour. That said, slave labour doesn't necessarily advance technology.
- thisrod 6y ago
  I suspect that, before the industrial revolution, everyday life was adventurous enough. Climbing didn't take off until the 19th Century, when the romantic movement was reacting against the safety and boredom of modern life, at least for elites. Life in Nepal might have problems, but I doubt that boredom due to excessive safety is one of them. I've been meaning to read that history for a long time, but never gotten around to it: https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Dragons-Conquest-Fergus-Fleming/dp/087113778X/ https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Dragons-Conquest-Fergus-Flemi...
  - ip26 6y ago
    Climbing started as part of territory disputes and non-military shows of national bravado. There’s been a repeated surge after wars wrap up- perhaps a stand-in trial for young men to prove themselves after the trial of combat ends. Many bold & great climbers of history were young men of no fame from poor countries. There weren’t that many wealthy dukes just looking for a way to pass the time.
    - thisrod 6y ago
      > There’s been a repeated surge after wars wrap up What are you referring to? The Second World War seems like the obvious case. I think there were two things at play there. European climbers returned to the Himalayas, and resumed where they left off in 1939; perhaps the war delayed the ascent of Everest instead of causing it. Also, nylon! Ropes that don't break—and that don't break falling lead climbers—were a huge enabling technology for rock climbing.

by jariel 6y ago

sebmellen 6y ago

That is an interesting question. I think the most obvious answer is that exploration is predicated on a certain level of technological advancement, below which it is completely unreasonable. If you don't have a food surplus and some academic establishment and governance and trade routes, exploration is an unreasonable vanity project. Guns, Germs, and Steel grazes this topic. As Nepal develops further, I expect to see more of these sorts of headlines.

beerandt 6y ago
Let's not dismiss nation-state exploration with having an overly indulgent hobby. Establishing and mapping boundaries, demonstrating military abilities, and even finding/protecting the trade routes you speak of, all required exploration on a large scale. Not to mention things like establishing trade and a friendly presence with locals, establishing surveillance posts, and my personal favorite, surveying the geoid, as a means to better ICBM guidance. Military always makes reason, and I suspect that might also be at play in Nepal.
spanktheuser 6y ago
It’s also predicated on the existence of an economy which provides ample leisure for some while others labor ceaselessly at the edges of poverty. There’s a reason the Indian sub-continent lacked a food surplus, academic establishments, strong governance etc. Great Britain looted an estimated $45 billion from its Indian colonies during the 173 years of its rule.
jariel 6y ago
The Indian subcontinent was very wealthy on the whole, and also extremely unequal, there are innumerable testaments to that. See: Taj Mahal etc. Very poor on a 'per-capita' basis but with unlimited labour. That said, slave labour doesn't necessarily advance technology.
thisrod 6y ago
I suspect that, before the industrial revolution, everyday life was adventurous enough. Climbing didn't take off until the 19th Century, when the romantic movement was reacting against the safety and boredom of modern life, at least for elites. Life in Nepal might have problems, but I doubt that boredom due to excessive safety is one of them. I've been meaning to read that history for a long time, but never gotten around to it: https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Dragons-Conquest-Fergus-Fleming/dp/087113778X/ https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Dragons-Conquest-Fergus-Flemi...
- ip26 6y ago
  Climbing started as part of territory disputes and non-military shows of national bravado. There’s been a repeated surge after wars wrap up- perhaps a stand-in trial for young men to prove themselves after the trial of combat ends. Many bold & great climbers of history were young men of no fame from poor countries. There weren’t that many wealthy dukes just looking for a way to pass the time.
  - thisrod 6y ago
    > There’s been a repeated surge after wars wrap up What are you referring to? The Second World War seems like the obvious case. I think there were two things at play there. European climbers returned to the Himalayas, and resumed where they left off in 1939; perhaps the war delayed the ascent of Everest instead of causing it. Also, nylon! Ropes that don't break—and that don't break falling lead climbers—were a huge enabling technology for rock climbing.