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 reso

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.