2 ms·

...but rather that we must develop these places to support the crowds that come. The thing about Everest in particular is it's appeal is that it can't be made

...but rather that we must develop these places to support the crowds that come. The thing about Everest in particular is it's appeal is that it can't be made safe, that climb it is an inherently dangerous activity - the top of Everest is an area known officially as "the death zone" [1] because just being there kills you (and makes you stupid and torpid). The final ascent to Everest is paved with trash and corpses because just cleaning up an area of that sort is at least as challenging as reaching a summit. And dying in the death zone is as easy stumbling and no one being able to pick you up. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_zone

petsfed 4y ago
I think part of the subtext of what Conrad Anker is saying in the article you shared is that there needs to be consequences for groups that don't bring the resources and capabilities to deal with their own trash, waste, and (if it comes to that) corpses. Like, if your expedition is consistently operating in an unsafe way, then e.g. climbing rangers have the power to strip you of your permits. Considering that Anker himself has spent time on Everest in an archeological and rescue capacity (he found George Leigh Mallory's body during an expedition to look for his and Sandy Irvine's final resting places, and sought to validate whether or not it was technically possible for Mallory or Irvine to have climbed the 2nd step, which is the most technical bit of climbing on the north side of Everest), I think he knows better than most whether or not climbing rangers and body removal teams are realistic. Based on how Everest and other 8000m peaks are climbed, I'd suggest that the average guided Everest climber likes to talk about how "dangerous" it is, but in practice, they aren't really involved in the conversations about their own hazard-assessment and -mitigation practices. Juxtapose that with expeditions attempting smaller but more remote mountains, alpine-style ascents on these bigger mountains, expeditions that forego supplemental oxygen, etc. Speaking only for myself, and not for any of the voices quoted in any articles here, I think climbers as a group need to let go of their individualism a bit. Everest in its current state is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons.

petsfed 4y ago

I think part of the subtext of what Conrad Anker is saying in the article you shared is that there needs to be consequences for groups that don't bring the resources and capabilities to deal with their own trash, waste, and (if it comes to that) corpses. Like, if your expedition is consistently operating in an unsafe way, then e.g. climbing rangers have the power to strip you of your permits. Considering that Anker himself has spent time on Everest in an archeological and rescue capacity (he found George Leigh Mallory's body during an expedition to look for his and Sandy Irvine's final resting places, and sought to validate whether or not it was technically possible for Mallory or Irvine to have climbed the 2nd step, which is the most technical bit of climbing on the north side of Everest), I think he knows better than most whether or not climbing rangers and body removal teams are realistic. Based on how Everest and other 8000m peaks are climbed, I'd suggest that the average guided Everest climber likes to talk about how "dangerous" it is, but in practice, they aren't really involved in the conversations about their own hazard-assessment and -mitigation practices. Juxtapose that with expeditions attempting smaller but more remote mountains, alpine-style ascents on these bigger mountains, expeditions that forego supplemental oxygen, etc. Speaking only for myself, and not for any of the voices quoted in any articles here, I think climbers as a group need to let go of their individualism a bit. Everest in its current state is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons.