This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
For those who haven't seen this months editorial in Climbing magazine (www.climbing.com), personally I think they should have named all of those who did not help, and firm slap on the back for the american and nepalese lads involved who obviously know that morality doesn't end at a certain altitude:
Epic heroes
Summit fever versus humanity at 28,000 feet
On the evening of May 23 this spring, Dave Hahn, Tap Richards, Jason Tanguay, and Sherpas Phu Dorje and Phu Nuru settled into high camp at 27,000 feet on the North Ridge of Mount Everest, poised for a summit bid early the next day. They had been on the mountain for over 60 days as part of the 2001 Mallory and Irvine Research Expedition, were well acclimated, and the forecast called for calm winds and stable weather. Spirits were high.
A call for help was the last thing they wanted to hear.
At 8:30 p.m. Chris Warner, a guide with the Himalayan Experience international expedition, reached Hahn's tent with desperate news: Two members of their team had collapsed with cerebral edema at the Third Step, 500 feet below the 29,035-foot summit. Guide Andy Lapkass and client Jaime Vinals had summited at the unusually late time of 3 p.m., despite several radio transmissions from team leader Russell Brice suggesting they turn around. The two became partially blind on starting the descent, and by dusk were unable to walk. A teammate who summited with them realized that in his exhausted state he could be of no help, and left them at the Third Step with a few partially used oxygen bottles and a space blanket. The entire Himalayan Experience high-camp team had gone for the summit that day and was exhausted; they had no reserve supplies or climbers for a rescue.
The American team left camp at 1 a.m. with a first-aid kit and extra oxygen bottles. They hoped to lend Vinals and Lapkass extra oxygen and victuals for their descent, and continue the final hour to the summit.
At 4:45, just below the Second Step around 28,000 feet, the American team encountered three Russian climbers who had summited the previous day and collapsed on the descent. Two were severely hypothermic, their down jackets unzipped and mittens torn off in delirium. The Americans administered the cerebral-edema drug Dexamethasone and shared their water and energy gel. Two Colombians walked by the scene but didn't offer help. Said Richards, "We figured if they wanted to stop and help, they would."
Richards sent Phu Nuru down without oxygen and provided the two sickest Russians a bottle of oxygen each. With the help of their strongest member, the three Russians were able start down together without additional assistance.
The Americans reached the Third Step just after 6 a.m., where they found Lapkass and Vinals barely conscious in near-zero temperatures, jackets unzipped, and Lapkass missing a mitten. Lapkass had summited Everest twice before via the Southeast Ridge; in his camera was a summit photo of him displaying a marriage proposal to his girlfriend. Vinals was completing the Seven Summits quest, and Everest marked his final tick. He had a pregnant wife at home.
The rescuers immediately gave the victims Phu Dorje's two oxygen bottles and sent the Sherpa down. They administered double doses of Dexamethasone and poured water and energy gel into Lapkass and Vinals' mouths. About this time the Colombians approached again, having been passed by the Americans above the Second Step. They offered the victims a bit of food and water, but refused to lend oxygen or manpower. Several minutes later, two Spanish climbers and a Sherpa approached. "I asked them for oxygen," said Richards, "but they shook their heads and kept walking."
After an hour and a half of intense reviving efforts, neither Lapkass nor Vinals was able to get on his feet. For the rescuers, continuing to the summit was out of the question. "We agreed that if we couldn't get them to walk, we should at least stay and comfort them for their final moments," said Richards. "That was a pretty somber time."
Finally, after more doses of Dexamethasone and coaxing, Lapkass was able to stand up and walk with assistance. Despite painfully slow progress -- five steps and then collapse -- Lapkass seemed to be improving. But Vinals was still having trouble. Said Richards, "It was clear that we would have to abandon Jaime if he couldn't stand up soon." Hahn refused to give up on Vinals, though. Carrying Vinals' oxygen, Hahn dragged him down toward the Second Step. The Spanish team, descending from the summit, passed the struggling Vinals and Hahn at the top of the Second Step, but again refused to help.
The most dangerous part of the rescue involved getting Lapkass and Vinals across the exposed ridgeline below the Second Step. "The fixed lines were crap," said Richards, "and if one person tripped we could all go."
Extra hands from Himalayan Experience and the American team arrived mid-morning, assisting Lapkass and Vinals safely to high camp by the afternoon.
As the rescuers rejoined one of the Russian climbers just above high camp, however, they found him unconscious on a ledge. Tanguay and Richards attempted to revive him, but the Russian died on the spot.
Despite this tragedy, the members of the Mallory and Irvine Research Expedition succeeded in one of the most daring high-altitude rescues ever attempted. Their deeds stand in stark contrast to those climbers who walked past the victims (many others encountered the Russians that morning) and did not help.
Perhaps I've missed something during our sport's evolution, but when did ticking a summit become more important than saving a fellow climber's life?
On the other hand, those climbers who insist on pushing for Everest's summit beyond all reasonable turn-around times have been given fair warning of their fates -- the trail of corpses lining the North Ridge provides a constant reminder. When summit-or-bust climbers ultimately become benighted and sick, whose moral obligation is it to launch a perilous rescue?
Similar dramas emerge in the articles of this special Epics II Issue. The peaks and rescue efforts differ, but the moral dilemmas are no simpler.
One thing, however, remains clear: The Everest rescuers are, in the words of Himalayan Experience's Warner, absolute heroes.
Lapkass, recovering at home in Colorado, declined to comment.
Richards, though, shuns the praise. "To stop and lend help to someone dying is not heroic. It's just an act of humanity."
-- Tyler Stableford
Epic heroes
Summit fever versus humanity at 28,000 feet
On the evening of May 23 this spring, Dave Hahn, Tap Richards, Jason Tanguay, and Sherpas Phu Dorje and Phu Nuru settled into high camp at 27,000 feet on the North Ridge of Mount Everest, poised for a summit bid early the next day. They had been on the mountain for over 60 days as part of the 2001 Mallory and Irvine Research Expedition, were well acclimated, and the forecast called for calm winds and stable weather. Spirits were high.
A call for help was the last thing they wanted to hear.
At 8:30 p.m. Chris Warner, a guide with the Himalayan Experience international expedition, reached Hahn's tent with desperate news: Two members of their team had collapsed with cerebral edema at the Third Step, 500 feet below the 29,035-foot summit. Guide Andy Lapkass and client Jaime Vinals had summited at the unusually late time of 3 p.m., despite several radio transmissions from team leader Russell Brice suggesting they turn around. The two became partially blind on starting the descent, and by dusk were unable to walk. A teammate who summited with them realized that in his exhausted state he could be of no help, and left them at the Third Step with a few partially used oxygen bottles and a space blanket. The entire Himalayan Experience high-camp team had gone for the summit that day and was exhausted; they had no reserve supplies or climbers for a rescue.
The American team left camp at 1 a.m. with a first-aid kit and extra oxygen bottles. They hoped to lend Vinals and Lapkass extra oxygen and victuals for their descent, and continue the final hour to the summit.
At 4:45, just below the Second Step around 28,000 feet, the American team encountered three Russian climbers who had summited the previous day and collapsed on the descent. Two were severely hypothermic, their down jackets unzipped and mittens torn off in delirium. The Americans administered the cerebral-edema drug Dexamethasone and shared their water and energy gel. Two Colombians walked by the scene but didn't offer help. Said Richards, "We figured if they wanted to stop and help, they would."
Richards sent Phu Nuru down without oxygen and provided the two sickest Russians a bottle of oxygen each. With the help of their strongest member, the three Russians were able start down together without additional assistance.
The Americans reached the Third Step just after 6 a.m., where they found Lapkass and Vinals barely conscious in near-zero temperatures, jackets unzipped, and Lapkass missing a mitten. Lapkass had summited Everest twice before via the Southeast Ridge; in his camera was a summit photo of him displaying a marriage proposal to his girlfriend. Vinals was completing the Seven Summits quest, and Everest marked his final tick. He had a pregnant wife at home.
The rescuers immediately gave the victims Phu Dorje's two oxygen bottles and sent the Sherpa down. They administered double doses of Dexamethasone and poured water and energy gel into Lapkass and Vinals' mouths. About this time the Colombians approached again, having been passed by the Americans above the Second Step. They offered the victims a bit of food and water, but refused to lend oxygen or manpower. Several minutes later, two Spanish climbers and a Sherpa approached. "I asked them for oxygen," said Richards, "but they shook their heads and kept walking."
After an hour and a half of intense reviving efforts, neither Lapkass nor Vinals was able to get on his feet. For the rescuers, continuing to the summit was out of the question. "We agreed that if we couldn't get them to walk, we should at least stay and comfort them for their final moments," said Richards. "That was a pretty somber time."
Finally, after more doses of Dexamethasone and coaxing, Lapkass was able to stand up and walk with assistance. Despite painfully slow progress -- five steps and then collapse -- Lapkass seemed to be improving. But Vinals was still having trouble. Said Richards, "It was clear that we would have to abandon Jaime if he couldn't stand up soon." Hahn refused to give up on Vinals, though. Carrying Vinals' oxygen, Hahn dragged him down toward the Second Step. The Spanish team, descending from the summit, passed the struggling Vinals and Hahn at the top of the Second Step, but again refused to help.
The most dangerous part of the rescue involved getting Lapkass and Vinals across the exposed ridgeline below the Second Step. "The fixed lines were crap," said Richards, "and if one person tripped we could all go."
Extra hands from Himalayan Experience and the American team arrived mid-morning, assisting Lapkass and Vinals safely to high camp by the afternoon.
As the rescuers rejoined one of the Russian climbers just above high camp, however, they found him unconscious on a ledge. Tanguay and Richards attempted to revive him, but the Russian died on the spot.
Despite this tragedy, the members of the Mallory and Irvine Research Expedition succeeded in one of the most daring high-altitude rescues ever attempted. Their deeds stand in stark contrast to those climbers who walked past the victims (many others encountered the Russians that morning) and did not help.
Perhaps I've missed something during our sport's evolution, but when did ticking a summit become more important than saving a fellow climber's life?
On the other hand, those climbers who insist on pushing for Everest's summit beyond all reasonable turn-around times have been given fair warning of their fates -- the trail of corpses lining the North Ridge provides a constant reminder. When summit-or-bust climbers ultimately become benighted and sick, whose moral obligation is it to launch a perilous rescue?
Similar dramas emerge in the articles of this special Epics II Issue. The peaks and rescue efforts differ, but the moral dilemmas are no simpler.
One thing, however, remains clear: The Everest rescuers are, in the words of Himalayan Experience's Warner, absolute heroes.
Lapkass, recovering at home in Colorado, declined to comment.
Richards, though, shuns the praise. "To stop and lend help to someone dying is not heroic. It's just an act of humanity."
-- Tyler Stableford
In reply to TobyA: Disturbing and disquieting. But perhaps hose who did not help, could not help because they were at their limits? They will have to live with their consciences. When they come to tell their stories of climbing E will they also admit that they did not help and also WHY?
In reply to TobyA: Disturbing and disquieting. But perhaps those who did not help, could not help because they were at their limits? They will have to live with their consciences. When they come to tell their stories of climbing E will they also admit that they did not help and also WHY?
In reply to TobyA:
Toby, I find this sort of stuff totally depressing! Is it the altitude, or summit fever that strips the value from human life? I hope that the Americans and the nepalese guy receive far more acclaim for their daring rescue than they ever would for summiting the worlds most crowded death trap.
Toby, I find this sort of stuff totally depressing! Is it the altitude, or summit fever that strips the value from human life? I hope that the Americans and the nepalese guy receive far more acclaim for their daring rescue than they ever would for summiting the worlds most crowded death trap.
In reply to TobyA:
For once an unquallified congratulations to the US boys and their Nepalese colleagues. Shame on the rest of them for not putting personal ambition before human life.
For once an unquallified congratulations to the US boys and their Nepalese colleagues. Shame on the rest of them for not putting personal ambition before human life.
In reply to stonemaster:
"personally I think they should have named all of those who did not help"
I think you're casting judgement on a situation you can't possibly understand.
"personally I think they should have named all of those who did not help"
I think you're casting judgement on a situation you can't possibly understand.
In reply to Horse: As a kid I had one of those viewfinder thingies (remember them ?) and one of the images was Everest. It always made me tingle looking at it - mysterious, daunting. Later, I read about Mallory & Irvine. Ah, the romance of it all. Now - after reading Joe Simpson's Dark Shadows Falling and hearing about all the rubbish, the dead bodies, the commercial exploitation, the unethical behaviour, etc. - I'm not sure I'd even want to go there. It's called growing up, I guess.
In reply to Jon: The other guys weren't coming down, they were going up. That tells me enough. I know some people mortgage their house, spend their life's savings and all that to get their chance, but I still don't think that justifies leaving others to die.
If they were coming down you could argue it was different, but they weren't they were going up. If they made it what would they have said on the top? "Wow brilliant! a shame about the dying people on the way up though. Kinda took the shine of my big day."
If they were coming down you could argue it was different, but they weren't they were going up. If they made it what would they have said on the top? "Wow brilliant! a shame about the dying people on the way up though. Kinda took the shine of my big day."
In reply to TobyA:
You can't just read a few paragraphs on a message board, think you've got a good understanding of the situation & then critisise the people who walked past the dying men. You don't have the full facts.
You can't just read a few paragraphs on a message board, think you've got a good understanding of the situation & then critisise the people who walked past the dying men. You don't have the full facts.
In reply to stonemaster:
sorry, clicked the wrong reply button - was directed at TobyA.
sorry, clicked the wrong reply button - was directed at TobyA.
In reply to TobyA:
All praise, of course, to the rescuers, but I would hesitate before condemning too harshly those who did not assist. Surely the first criticism should be directed towards the organisers of the Himalayan Experience expedition; the guide for failing in his duty by not turning back and the rest for not having the resources to attempt to get their team out of trouble?
Andy
All praise, of course, to the rescuers, but I would hesitate before condemning too harshly those who did not assist. Surely the first criticism should be directed towards the organisers of the Himalayan Experience expedition; the guide for failing in his duty by not turning back and the rest for not having the resources to attempt to get their team out of trouble?
Andy
In reply to TobyA: The last line made me think, heroic, perhaps not, as he says, but I would hold them all in the highest regard for giving up such a hard to get summit to help the two climbers who had pushed on despite warnings to turn back. Morale courage, would that be the right description?
Well written by the way, the obligation to rescue the irresponsible, perhaps all climbers going up Everest should consider having special insurance where by if someone rescues them they are liable to fund the rescuers next attempt at the peak they gave up
Cheers
Toby
Well written by the way, the obligation to rescue the irresponsible, perhaps all climbers going up Everest should consider having special insurance where by if someone rescues them they are liable to fund the rescuers next attempt at the peak they gave up
Cheers
Toby
In reply to TobyA:
Maybe the Americans retained their humanity through acclimatisation reducing the brain effects of altitude. While not seeking to condone what at first sight seems callous behaviour, there are many reports of the behaviour and character changing effects of high altitude.
Still would like to think I'd have helped if I could though...
Wonderful effort by those concerned..
Maybe the Americans retained their humanity through acclimatisation reducing the brain effects of altitude. While not seeking to condone what at first sight seems callous behaviour, there are many reports of the behaviour and character changing effects of high altitude.
Still would like to think I'd have helped if I could though...
Wonderful effort by those concerned..
In reply to Andy Brown: Steady on. Russell Brice rocks. He can only do so much at basecamp.
In reply to stonemaster:
"Russell Brice rocks. He can only do so much at basecamp."
Sure, and it sounded like he tried pretty hard. But to my mind the criticism should still be directed more towards the company - is it wise to have nobody in a fit state to help if a problem arises? I don't know what the standard practice is for these comercial expeditions, but being totally reliant on outside help in the case of a problem seems foolish and selfish.
Andy.
"Russell Brice rocks. He can only do so much at basecamp."
Sure, and it sounded like he tried pretty hard. But to my mind the criticism should still be directed more towards the company - is it wise to have nobody in a fit state to help if a problem arises? I don't know what the standard practice is for these comercial expeditions, but being totally reliant on outside help in the case of a problem seems foolish and selfish.
Andy.
In reply to Tom:
Thanks - that's very interesting. He certainly did more than it seemed from the report above, and appears to approach commercial expeditions with a responsible and ethical attitude. I would, however, still suggest that it would be a sensible plan to have a couple of relatively fit climbers at base camp in case such an occasion arises. At the end of the day his clients only survived because other expeditions were willing and able to assist.
Andy.
Thanks - that's very interesting. He certainly did more than it seemed from the report above, and appears to approach commercial expeditions with a responsible and ethical attitude. I would, however, still suggest that it would be a sensible plan to have a couple of relatively fit climbers at base camp in case such an occasion arises. At the end of the day his clients only survived because other expeditions were willing and able to assist.
Andy.
In reply to Andy Brown: Thats like saying the fire brigade should have a list of houses without smoke alarms, and not need to rescue people from them, because it was their own fault anyway.
Turn around time differs, you wouldn't say some one doesn't deserve rescuing because they don't have the best gear, or they didn't employ enough Sherpas or something would you? Mistakes get made.
Turn around time differs, you wouldn't say some one doesn't deserve rescuing because they don't have the best gear, or they didn't employ enough Sherpas or something would you? Mistakes get made.
In reply to TobyA:
I wasn't suggesting that they shouldn't have been rescued! And I completely agree that anyone on the mountain at the time who can safely help has a moral duty to assist. It was undoubtedly selfish to walk on by and those who did should be ashamed of themselves.
Equally an expedition has a duty to be as self contained as possible, and I suggest that planning to have a couple of climbers available in case of incident is a wise precaution. Large numbers of this expedition summited on the same day - would it have hurt for some to wait until the next day as a safety margin? If this had been done there would probably have been no need to call on others for help (which, to his credit Russell Brice admits as undesirable). I don't think this expedition is beyond criticism.
Andy
I wasn't suggesting that they shouldn't have been rescued! And I completely agree that anyone on the mountain at the time who can safely help has a moral duty to assist. It was undoubtedly selfish to walk on by and those who did should be ashamed of themselves.
Equally an expedition has a duty to be as self contained as possible, and I suggest that planning to have a couple of climbers available in case of incident is a wise precaution. Large numbers of this expedition summited on the same day - would it have hurt for some to wait until the next day as a safety margin? If this had been done there would probably have been no need to call on others for help (which, to his credit Russell Brice admits as undesirable). I don't think this expedition is beyond criticism.
Andy
any of those of you who have read or seen any of Dante's inferno, there is, he says a certain, horriffic punishment for those who stand by and do nothing.
i struggle to find the words to explain my feelings, how can people just walk on by while people die? it's only a mountain. now, i know that most will only get one go at the summit, but what's better: to have plodded to the top of the world's highest pony track, or to have saved a life?
i struggle to find the words to explain my feelings, how can people just walk on by while people die? it's only a mountain. now, i know that most will only get one go at the summit, but what's better: to have plodded to the top of the world's highest pony track, or to have saved a life?
In reply to Andy Brown:
I wonder what the position is regarding summit permits - if there are two people sitting at base camp doing nothing, do they need permits on the off-chance they may be needed? And if how are they to acclimatise? If they don't then they won't be any use for a rescue, if they do then they're no longer available/fit.
I wonder what the position is regarding summit permits - if there are two people sitting at base camp doing nothing, do they need permits on the off-chance they may be needed? And if how are they to acclimatise? If they don't then they won't be any use for a rescue, if they do then they're no longer available/fit.
In reply to Andy Brown: "criticism towards ... the guide for failing in his duty by not turning back"
When your at that altitude, you don't necessarily make rational decisions. Just as if you're hypothermic you remove clothes instead of adding them.
When your at that altitude, you don't necessarily make rational decisions. Just as if you're hypothermic you remove clothes instead of adding them.
In reply to Simon C:
"When your at that altitude, you don't necessarily make rational decisions. Just as if you're hypothermic you remove clothes instead of adding them."
Of course - hence the whole debate about the principle of guided trips up Everest.
I'm not sure of the situation regarding permits etc. Obviously it is logistically difficult to have fit people available for a potential rescue. In this case however it seems that it would have been possible to delay by a 24hours the summit day of a few of the large group. Hard to tell without having been there of course. The real test is what would have been planned if no-one else was on the mountain - other climbers availability for a rescue should have no impact on planning.
Andy.
"When your at that altitude, you don't necessarily make rational decisions. Just as if you're hypothermic you remove clothes instead of adding them."
Of course - hence the whole debate about the principle of guided trips up Everest.
I'm not sure of the situation regarding permits etc. Obviously it is logistically difficult to have fit people available for a potential rescue. In this case however it seems that it would have been possible to delay by a 24hours the summit day of a few of the large group. Hard to tell without having been there of course. The real test is what would have been planned if no-one else was on the mountain - other climbers availability for a rescue should have no impact on planning.
Andy.
In reply to Lucy: Deserved acclaim: absolutely. Saving someone's life in such dire circumstances ranks way higher in my book than merely achieving the summit. It requires immense skill, determination, guts, sound thinking, and above all, humanity to complete.
It has long been considered that it is just about impossible to rescue people in such conditions. These _heroes_* have shown that to be untrue.
That said, note that the report indicates that even these guys would not have contemplated physically bringing anyone down who couldn't at least vaguely locomote. That would require a genuinely superhuman effort at that altitude.
As for those who walked on by, I guess they were at the extremes of their survival, and could not contemplate giving up their own essential life-saving supplies to help someone else, whereas the rescue team went equipped with extra oxygen, Dex, water, energy gel, etc. They are not the first, and they won't be the last to walk by.
That is what makes the efforts of the rescuers truly outstanding, however humble they may be. Hopefully, they will look back on it not as a missed opportunity, but as a greater opportunity, which they grasped fully, and in which they succeeded brilliantly.
Ultimate respect to them.
* hero
noun:
a man of distinguished bravery;
any illustrious person;
a person reverenced and idealized
....
(c) Larousse plc. All rights reserved
One and three ring true for me.
It has long been considered that it is just about impossible to rescue people in such conditions. These _heroes_* have shown that to be untrue.
That said, note that the report indicates that even these guys would not have contemplated physically bringing anyone down who couldn't at least vaguely locomote. That would require a genuinely superhuman effort at that altitude.
As for those who walked on by, I guess they were at the extremes of their survival, and could not contemplate giving up their own essential life-saving supplies to help someone else, whereas the rescue team went equipped with extra oxygen, Dex, water, energy gel, etc. They are not the first, and they won't be the last to walk by.
That is what makes the efforts of the rescuers truly outstanding, however humble they may be. Hopefully, they will look back on it not as a missed opportunity, but as a greater opportunity, which they grasped fully, and in which they succeeded brilliantly.
Ultimate respect to them.
* hero
noun:
a man of distinguished bravery;
any illustrious person;
a person reverenced and idealized
....
(c) Larousse plc. All rights reserved
One and three ring true for me.
It's ironic and tremendously sad that the world's highest mountain has become the antithesis of the spirit of climbing, and ethics and morals appear to be completely abandoned. Where else would anyone refuse to help a dying human being? Is it acceptable to simply abandon all your rubbish, paraphernalia and what have you and sod the environmental consequences? In the storms of 1999 it was apparently acceptable to abandon your sherpas, leaving them to die whilst getting youself whipped off down the valley by helicopter.
It doesn't seem to be a good thing offering trips up Everest to folks with the right amount of cash but no amount of experience - usually it appears that they either get into trouble themselves and jeopardise genuine climbers summit chances, or at the least perhaps find themselves in a situation where they feel unable (through selfish reeasons or otherwise) to offer assistance to others in trouble.
It doesn't seem to be a good thing offering trips up Everest to folks with the right amount of cash but no amount of experience - usually it appears that they either get into trouble themselves and jeopardise genuine climbers summit chances, or at the least perhaps find themselves in a situation where they feel unable (through selfish reeasons or otherwise) to offer assistance to others in trouble.
In reply to Andy Brown:
Although my ambition is to be a guide, I would love it if they banned guiding on Everest. Too many people die there every year, and some of the guides evidently become so hypoxic that they can't make the rational decisions that they are normally capable of at lower altitudes. I think a "climb at your own risk" attitude in non-commercial, perhaps sponsored expeditions would be fine. Obviously,it might prove difficult to do this in our stupidly litigous society as guides would probably complain of loss of livlihood or something even though there are loads of other mountains!
I'm not going to pass judgement on this expedition because the situation is so extreeme up their - stories get twisted and contorted anyway, and I imagine especially on Everest with a highly explosive mix of a few highly motivated/self-centred individuals, a lot of money flying around, and the strange effects of the thin air! Goran Kropp has some good views on this sort of thing - read his book about when he cycled from Sweden to Everest carrying all his own gear and food and then climbed it solo (same year as "Into Thin Air" was written)(called "the Ultimate adventure - my Everest Odyssey", or something along those lines. Also interesting to read BTW is the bit about his early years and childhood (this relates to CB thread) - now he is a guy who really did struggle through adversity - he has done no where near as much for mountaineering as CB, but I respect him 1000% more simply because of what he went through. Some people ARE born advantaged (I'm not saying CB was (and BTW I never said he was crap - just advantaged)- I don't know enough on that one, although he does have a manner which endears him to the public, probably from being middle class and having a good education - little things like that have a surprisingly huge impact on where we end up in life - just look at the statistics!). It's not an excuse for the rest of us though, I'm just saying - more of a comment about society really - so much behind the scenes bullsh*t that goes on without a lot of us knowing - subconcious thoughts in peoples minds that just serve to maintain the status quo. That's why I climb actually (another thread), to get away from this sh*tty society of ours, not because I'm a well-endowed product of it who just does it as a hobby cos he can afford to. Sorry for digressing, or if I've offended anyone who is well off or whatever. In a way, it is jealousy - after all, if I had your money I wouldn't complain - and it's not just money is it? - it's our morals that we receive through our background and upbringing - if I suddenly got money now, I would probably keep what I needed to go climbing, and then give the rest to charity or something - if I had it all from the beggining, I probably wouldn't. Strange eh? Anyway, as far as I care really, people are all the same, regardless of what money they have, but there is no denying that some ARE advantaged, and there is no denying this however much you want to argue about it. Some of my best friends are very well off indeed and incredibly nice people - what pisses me off is when people try to make out that certain achievements are ALL down to graft - most rich business people today worked damn hard yes, but they also probably had the "face that fits" etc............
Anyway, I'll just shut up now and leave you guys to argue tiil the cows come home, which is clearly always possible when there is no real answer to the questions...........
Although my ambition is to be a guide, I would love it if they banned guiding on Everest. Too many people die there every year, and some of the guides evidently become so hypoxic that they can't make the rational decisions that they are normally capable of at lower altitudes. I think a "climb at your own risk" attitude in non-commercial, perhaps sponsored expeditions would be fine. Obviously,it might prove difficult to do this in our stupidly litigous society as guides would probably complain of loss of livlihood or something even though there are loads of other mountains!
I'm not going to pass judgement on this expedition because the situation is so extreeme up their - stories get twisted and contorted anyway, and I imagine especially on Everest with a highly explosive mix of a few highly motivated/self-centred individuals, a lot of money flying around, and the strange effects of the thin air! Goran Kropp has some good views on this sort of thing - read his book about when he cycled from Sweden to Everest carrying all his own gear and food and then climbed it solo (same year as "Into Thin Air" was written)(called "the Ultimate adventure - my Everest Odyssey", or something along those lines. Also interesting to read BTW is the bit about his early years and childhood (this relates to CB thread) - now he is a guy who really did struggle through adversity - he has done no where near as much for mountaineering as CB, but I respect him 1000% more simply because of what he went through. Some people ARE born advantaged (I'm not saying CB was (and BTW I never said he was crap - just advantaged)- I don't know enough on that one, although he does have a manner which endears him to the public, probably from being middle class and having a good education - little things like that have a surprisingly huge impact on where we end up in life - just look at the statistics!). It's not an excuse for the rest of us though, I'm just saying - more of a comment about society really - so much behind the scenes bullsh*t that goes on without a lot of us knowing - subconcious thoughts in peoples minds that just serve to maintain the status quo. That's why I climb actually (another thread), to get away from this sh*tty society of ours, not because I'm a well-endowed product of it who just does it as a hobby cos he can afford to. Sorry for digressing, or if I've offended anyone who is well off or whatever. In a way, it is jealousy - after all, if I had your money I wouldn't complain - and it's not just money is it? - it's our morals that we receive through our background and upbringing - if I suddenly got money now, I would probably keep what I needed to go climbing, and then give the rest to charity or something - if I had it all from the beggining, I probably wouldn't. Strange eh? Anyway, as far as I care really, people are all the same, regardless of what money they have, but there is no denying that some ARE advantaged, and there is no denying this however much you want to argue about it. Some of my best friends are very well off indeed and incredibly nice people - what pisses me off is when people try to make out that certain achievements are ALL down to graft - most rich business people today worked damn hard yes, but they also probably had the "face that fits" etc............
Anyway, I'll just shut up now and leave you guys to argue tiil the cows come home, which is clearly always possible when there is no real answer to the questions...........
In reply to Mick Dewsbury:
It doesn't seem to be a good thing offering trips up Everest to folks with the right amount of cash but no amount of experience
I agree, but the problem is that anyone can do it thesedays. Set up a website, put together an underfunded expedition, sell places at £8K a pop, take anyone...even though you may have bugger all experience yourself. There are 'commercial' expeditions to Everest that run out of food, don't have enough local staff, don't assist in equipping or maintaining safety on the mountain, sleep in other people's tents and fail to make any kind of impression on the mountain. Don't you think that they are more likely to be a liability to other climbers than a company that has run 11 expeditions to the mountain?
It doesn't seem to be a good thing offering trips up Everest to folks with the right amount of cash but no amount of experience
I agree, but the problem is that anyone can do it thesedays. Set up a website, put together an underfunded expedition, sell places at £8K a pop, take anyone...even though you may have bugger all experience yourself. There are 'commercial' expeditions to Everest that run out of food, don't have enough local staff, don't assist in equipping or maintaining safety on the mountain, sleep in other people's tents and fail to make any kind of impression on the mountain. Don't you think that they are more likely to be a liability to other climbers than a company that has run 11 expeditions to the mountain?
In reply to GAZ:
GAZ, you really do have a chip on your shoulder about money don't you?!
This starts off as a question of human morality and whether you should walk past people who are dying, and you manage to turn it into another whine about people who might have a few more quid than you! Extraordinary.
Cheers,
Andy R
GAZ, you really do have a chip on your shoulder about money don't you?!
This starts off as a question of human morality and whether you should walk past people who are dying, and you manage to turn it into another whine about people who might have a few more quid than you! Extraordinary.
Cheers,
Andy R
In reply to GAZ:
Can you please change the record, you seem to have rather limited number of things to say (reflect your experience??)and these seem to be money (or lack off), the wickedness of a supposed class system and your Swedish hero. It is becoming rather dull.
BTW not wanting to stir up a hornets nest on this thread but you still have not explained or in any way substantiated on the other one why Old Bonio was advantaged. Care to come back over there and enlighten me?
Can you please change the record, you seem to have rather limited number of things to say (reflect your experience??)and these seem to be money (or lack off), the wickedness of a supposed class system and your Swedish hero. It is becoming rather dull.
BTW not wanting to stir up a hornets nest on this thread but you still have not explained or in any way substantiated on the other one why Old Bonio was advantaged. Care to come back over there and enlighten me?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...