3 ms·
It's naive to suggest limiting the number of permits given per year. On one hand it's a major source of income to both the Nepali government and the local econo
by redleader55 3y ago
It's naive to suggest limiting the number of permits given per year. On one hand it's a major source of income to both the Nepali government and the local economy. On the other hand, the folks with the most money will still get the permits and the mountaineers will not, thereby increasing the chance of accidents.
- londons_explore 3y agoArguably, better safety will increase the numbers of people wanting to climb Everest, and thereby increase revenues.
- thejohnconway 3y agoI’d bet the opposite, personally. I think the risk is an important part of it, and clearly it’s not putting enough people off. There’s probably an, erm, ‘sweet’ spot where there are enough deaths to make it feel spectacularly dangerous, but not so many you think it’s going to happen to _you_.
- PinguTS 3y agoAlan Arnette is a well recognized mountaineer for years. He summited Everest, K2, and all the 7 summits. He is well recognized and connected within the community for years. He knows how it works. Did you also read the last sentences of his blog post?
- aredox 3y agoThere is certainly a sweet spot where they can increase the price of permits and still get more money in total. If an economist would do some good in the world, they could help the Nepali government find this sweet spot. It would improve Nepalis'livelihood and save some lives.