Everest is littered with dead, exposed bodies

http://godheadv.blogspot.com/2010/04/abandoned-on-everest.html

by ck2 • 16 years ago

664 255 16 years ago

godheadv.blogspot.com

ck2• 16 years ago

Is it ego or the "human spirit" that makes people try the summit anyway?

Some things I'll never understand in this world.

How about just running a marathon instead?

burgerbrain2• 16 years ago

I'm going to go with mental illness.

These people arn't proving themselves, they're abandoning their humanity. It's not something to be celebrated.

rdl9• 16 years ago

I'd be willing to assume a lot more personal risk to be the first person to do something like land on Mars or summit Everest, especially if it's not even clear that it can be done, than to be the 50th. Even more so if there is some compelling scientific benefit to going (which, thanks to robotics, there really isn't anymore, at least for brief boot/flag-planting visits).

There are extremely limited cases where it would be worth sacrificing someone's life to accomplish something (jumping on a grenade to save a bunch of other people, perhaps where acting saves other people). I could see people willingly sacrificing themselves for sufficiently otherwise unobtainable knowledge, but it would be immoral if not voluntary.

d2viant• 16 years ago

That's a pretty harsh characterization of their motivation. I'm guessing when you're standing on the top of that summit you establish a connection with nature that you can't get from simply running a marathon. I'd absolutely celebrate anybody who achieves that. The world needs more people who are willing to step so far out of their comfort zone to achieve seemingly impossible things.

checker659• 16 years ago

As far as the Sherpas go, they are born into the mountains. It's their world. They scale the mountains because that's what they know how to do best. It's their way of life (just like your way of life might be being an entrepreneur).

mfukar4• 16 years ago

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's 'crazy', an 'illness', or even remotely illogical.

Of course, I wouldn't know what to characterize it other than sheer sense of adventure. I can totally understand going for the highest achievement one can pull off, and it certainly might seem like lunacy to many.

sliverstorm• 16 years ago

Depends on the person. The original climbers probably went for things like extreme personal challenge, or fame. I'm sure there are climbers now as well (now that climbing Everest has been commoditized a bit) who do it for the novelty.

zzleeper• 16 years ago

There is a certain beauty in mountain climbing that I doubt any marathon can compete with.

That said, maybe they can just climb smaller--but also beautiful--mountains? 6k? 7km? Why does it has to be 8.8km?

JacobAldridge• 16 years ago

Why does it has to be 8.8km?

Because it's there.

jedbrown10• 16 years ago

Because Everest is on the tick list that non-climbers recognize and because a lot of the lower mountains are much, much harder and nobody will guide them. There is a reason Gasherbrum IV has only been climbed four times (five if you count the 1985 Kurtyka-Schauer route, which is still regarded as one of the most impressive alpine climbs ever), Gasherbrum III has been climbed twice, Khunyang Chhish twice, Bainthha Brakk twice, Latok I. There are lots of other "obscure" remote peaks with one or zero ascents that are way harder, more adventurous, and serious than Everest. Climbing Everest solo post-monsoon by a new route in 1980, or from the north as a party of two without carrying ropes or sleeping gear in 1986 is absolutely impressive. Trudging up the normal route with support does not count as climbing to anyone who climbs.

mks3• 16 years ago

I am just a recreational climber but my motivation is a mix of overcoming myself and enjoying beauty of nature.

The challenge in climbing is very real (not that dissimilar to startup) - you have to plan ahead, check conditions, execute well and know when to bail out. Sometimes I say that climbing is the real thing and business is just for fun - when you screw in business you probably won't die. But noone wants to die in the mountains either.

The beautiful thing about mountains is that it does not matter who you are back in civil life. There is no difference if you have fame or money back home. It is up to your skill, training and determination.

And of course when getting to mountain by yourself the connection and enjoyment is much better than by cable car.

Great article on types of experiences by climbers: http://kellycordes.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/the-fun-scale/

CamperBob• 16 years ago

How about just running a marathon instead?

How about just taking whatever drugs are necessary to stimulate the same neurotransmitter production?

wyclif3• 16 years ago

I'm a big fan of inexpensive hobbies that allow me to keep both feet at sea level.

bhickey• 16 years ago

Climbing has the benefit of making you look good.

makeramen3• 16 years ago

I'm not the only one noticing the connection to startups right?

Though not as morbid, I would imagine "stepping over dead bodies" and "leaving teammates behind" is a rather common experience in startups as well, though potentially frowned upon (but even then, it would depend on the situation).

EDIT: I think I need to clarify, I'm thinking more that startup COMPANIES are like everest climbers, trying to reach profitability/success. And then we can similarly say "[The internet] is littered with dead, exposed bodies [of startups]"

joe_the_user2• 16 years ago

I up-voted you because I'm honestly curious how many people would agree with your statement. (no sarcasm implied)

swombat2• 16 years ago

There's a difference between even screwing over your best friend ("The Social Network"-style) and leaving them to die alone in a frozen desert of hell, where their mummified remains will stand for years to come as a grim reminder that someone left them behind.

Sure, there's some very distant analogy, but it's really a different kettle of fish.

makeramen3• 16 years ago

I feel like there's a sort of mutual understanding of the risk among all parties going into these situations. Yes one is much more grim than others, but in concept at least.

zaidf2• 16 years ago

Especially when "screwing over" means settling a lawsuit with gazillions of dollars.

I agree, I don't see much of a similarity between startups and risking death--literally.

It seems tantalizing and there is lots of vague overlap in attitudes and risks but that is something startups share with anything requiring lots of hard work, passion and commitment.

JabavuAdams6• 16 years ago

> where their mummified remains will stand for years to come as a grim reminder that someone left them behind.

where their mummified remains will stand for years to come as a grim reminder of their awesomeness.

Fixed that for you.

Semiapies2• 16 years ago

People like to glamorize their business endeavors. Some guys at computers building a web-app just isn't that exciting to people without a lot of fictionalization or likening it to something more exciting.

wikyd2• 16 years ago

It's been my experience that the community is exactly the opposite. Founders and early employees are generally eager to help others, even when they probably don't have the time to spare. I've always tried to do the same and it has paid off easily 10x in terms of the amount of advice and help my startup has received.

makeramen3• 16 years ago

I agree wholeheartedly. All the startup founders I've met have all been more than willing to help others out.

But at the same time, when it comes to business decisions, personal relationships often take a back seat (i.e. Zuckerberg), and sometimes it's simply good business (i.e. Eric Schmidt leaving Apple board probably due to Android vs. iPhone, WePay icing Paypal, companies suing each other over IP/copyright... etc).

I'm not at all criticizing the people startup community, but just noticing the similarities among us that drive us towards a similar goal of success with that of Everest climbers trying to summit. To outsiders of either community, certain decisions may seem unintuitive, or even outright morally wrong, but sometimes perspective is everything.

DuncanIdaho2• 16 years ago

Well so do mountaineers - when there not at the edge of life due to exhaustion in the "death zone".

I'm in same millieu with some of the greatest climbers of the world. And generally they are some of the best (read moral, ethical, sincere) people I ever met.

But when an accident happens somewhere on K2 - sometimes there needs to be a tradeoff - either some die or all die. There have been daring (but foolish) successfull rescue attempts. These guys tend to make peace with the world before they start climbing the damn thing.

Messner himself had to leave his own brother die to stay alive.

Mz4• 16 years ago

Your thought makes me think of some tidbit from an interview on a show. It was an HGTV episode about extreme homes -- some guy with some ridiculously large house that cost gajillions to build. (IIRC) He had been a military pilot who flew more than 100 missions, all of which involved someone shooting at him. He went into real estate after he left the military on the theory that high risk, high finance real estate couldn't be more nerve wracking than that. Obviously, he made scads of money.

I suspect that successfully facing down death can do a lot to prepare you for making it in business. I have no real reason to believe the relationship particularly runs the other direction though.

Not that you were suggesting any such thing.

jonhendry• 16 years ago

"the theory that high risk, high finance real estate couldn't be more nerve wracking than that. Obviously, he made scads of money"

I wonder how he's doing now.

bootload3• 16 years ago

"... Though not as morbid, I would imagine "stepping over dead bodies" and "leaving teammates behind" is a rather common experience in startups as well, though potentially frowned upon (but even then, it would depend on the situation). ..."

You're kidding right?

Working in a Startup, in a cushy office with access to water, food & external help is not in the same league as roughing it. Having said that the lessons you learn in the field can be directly applied to Startups. The constraints on resources, the stresses, the lack of knowledge and uncertainty. That's where the comparisons end. If you can't hack it - you can go home. In the field, you never leave anyone behind . Never!

JabavuAdams6• 16 years ago

> In the field, you never leave anyone behind . Never!

This mentality is encouraged because otherwise it would be harder to recruit soldiers, but it's bad strategy. There are times when the success of a mission may depend on leaving someone behind.

EDIT> Just as the "never leave anyone behind" meme is an artificial construct, you might be able to train a force with a culture of "I will never force my mates to have to rescue me". Warrior culture is a construct.

lsc• 16 years ago

eh, I think that if firing someone is like killing him, you are doing it wrong. I mean, yeah, in the course of your business, sometimes you have to fire people for the good of the company; but I don't see how that's anything like leaving them behind to die; and really, I think part of the skillset employers need to be good employers is the ability to separate from someone without hating them or inspiring hate.

I mean, don't get me wrong, to be an employer, you need to be able and willing to fire people. I'm just saying, there's no reason to do so with malice, and there's quite a lot of reason to help them get another job somewhere else, usually. I mean, you hired the guy to begin with, so you must think he's got some redeeming qualities someone else might like, even if you don't need those qualities at the moment.

kmfrk• 16 years ago

There is a great mountain-climbing article here that I recommend reading: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/11/prep-scho....

BRadmin• 16 years ago

The mini-documentary season Everest: Beyond the Limit (streaming on Netflix) is a pretty interesting watch, and chronicles an expedition to the top - including a climber who actually encountered David Sharp on the mountain, while he was still alive, and the thought-process / decision of having to leave him behind.

Also, even though Everest is the highest mountain the world...

Annapurna has the highest fatality to summit ratio of all mountains @ ~40%.

And K2, with the second highest fatality rate (and 2nd highest elevation), is generally regarded as the most physically difficult and technically challenging.

rdl9• 16 years ago

Deep wreck and cave diving is similarly dangerous (and was much more so before the adoption of Trimix by the technical diving community). There have been numerous fatalities among rescuers trying to recover corpses of other dead divers, too.

I decided after reading a fair bit about this that even if I can afford to dive like this ($20k+ for equipment, $10-20k+ for training, and $500+ per dive for helium-based gas fills), it's just not worth the risk. I'm going to build a ROV or AUV to do all my deep/wreck diving for me, and stick to much safer diving profiles.

The other problem with deep SCUBA is that it's all been done, and better, by commercial divers using surface supplied or saturation diving techniques. It's like cryptanalysis in the open world; the NSA clearly has vastly better capabilities, so at best you're discovering things they already know. Except with surface supplied/saturation, you can see exactly how they did it, and if you had the money, could just do it that way yourself. (I'd be really interested in semi-professional surface supplied or saturation diving as a new super-technical hobby diver thing)

cubicle672• 16 years ago

example http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/How-a-cave-diver-film...

nradov4• 16 years ago

It's actually only about half that price or less (in the US), unless you get into the really extreme stuff. There is a lot more to diving safety than just using the correct gas mixes. The training and procedures developed by groups like the WKPP and GUE have now taken nearly all the risk out of technical diving. http://www.gue.com/

rdl9• 16 years ago

Yes for caves. Caves are easy and safe compared to deep open ocean wrecks. Caves may actually be within the "reasonable to do recreationally" level, and WKPP is or was actually doing worthwhile environmental science too.

Outside of the US, helium is seriously expensive. I was figuring dual rebreathers, or rebreather + OC bailout. $800 in gas alone for a 100m training dive for TDI Adv Nitrox, open circuit.

WKPP and GUE definitely use teams to reduce the risk AND cost (although I have some issues with some of GUE), but at the same time, it reduces your flexibility. I really would want to only do tech diving with a group of people I routinely train with and trust, but I'd be ok with customizing our gear as a group.

Not using computers is just fucking unforgivably wrong, though. Using a computed table as your primary dive plan, sure, but you want a computer in case anything doesn't go according to plan, plus a bottom timer.

I wouldn't dive below 30m in a difficult environment without dual buoyancy on independent gas sources (drysuit + argon bottle, or twin tanks manifolded with BC on one and drysuit on the other, etc.). Helmets, especially with lights, can save your life. Snorkels can be useful if you do shore dives or long surface swims (although I throw it into a BC pocket). There are times when a big knife, prybar, hammer, etc. can be useful, and I never dive without shears and a knife. Solo dives are probably better for some wrecks (although maybe it being a solo-only environment makes it not worth diving there). Air at 30-40m is probably ok, although trimix at 40m+.

wooster8• 16 years ago

Have you read Blind Descent? One of the things that most struck me was that cave diving is more dangerous, fatality-rate-wise, than space exploration.

rdl9• 16 years ago

Space is inherently dangerous, but since it's so high visibility (and funded by deep pockets), they can use technology to reduce the risk below most activities. I think they go too far in reducing the risk -- I'd accept a 10% fatality rate for important space missions if everyone was a volunteer, if it improved the rate of progress.

We know how to do diving in worse environments than caves relatively safely -- commercial and naval (Naval diving is working on docks and repairs for the Navy in peacetime vs. military diving, which is the kind of dangerous combat/commando/infiltration/specops missions done by SEALs and UDTs, etc.) diving to 500m is actually relatively safe as a career. This often takes place in HAZMAT environments, zero visibility, etc.

The issue is that recreational/"technical" divers are doing it with much less equipment, and vastly less support staff. A commercial diver has a $3-5mm recompression chamber waiting above, a safety diver ready to splash in, dive medics or medical officers, a dedicated support ship, unlimited surface-supplied gas, heated water in the cold, wired communications, etc. Recreational divers have what they can carry and personally afford to buy.

zaidf2• 16 years ago

With the amount of precaution they take for space exploration, I'd think a lot of things are more dangerous, fatality-wise, than space exploration.

SeanDav• 16 years ago

I believe Steeplechasing is the most dangerous, widely practised sport, although apparently golf has more fatalities due to all the retired preople dropping dead on golf courses - ofc this could just be urban legend!

mason552• 16 years ago

http://outsideonline.com/outside/features/200508/dave-shaw-1...

A wonderful article about the attempted recovery of a body in a deep cave

joe_the_user2• 16 years ago

I had a friend describe his experience when climbing one of the highest peaks in South America.

He said it was the most specular view he had seen in his life - he could literally see both the Atlantic and the Pacific simultaneously. But despite this, he was so physically miserable that he derived no joy from the experience at the time.

Of course, that's still much lower the Everest.

dkarl2• 16 years ago

I don't do anything spectacular, but I've learned not to expect much of my pictures when I do strenuous (for me) backpacking. Show people pictures of the view, wildlife, etc., and they say, "Wow!" "Beautiful!" "Oooh, I'm so jealous!" Show them pictures of me posing proudly on a peak with a beautiful view behind me, and they say, "Gosh, you look so tired!" "You look miserable! Was it worth it?" "Why do you do that? I'd rather go to the beach."

So I stopped showing people those pictures :-/

rfreytag• 16 years ago

I keep hearing how startup founders are often "scratching an itch." I think the climber's itch is different in primarily beginning and ending in personal gratification.

If you are looking for a challenge climbing Everest might be only a little cheaper that doing a startup (about $65K it appears: http://outside-blog.away.com/blog/2009/12/how-much-does-it-c...).

morbidkk• 16 years ago

If you liked the article you must also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Thin_Air by Jon Krakauer

varjag3• 16 years ago

Media 2.0 at its best: a bunch of photos lifted without attribution. I recognize at least one to be from a Nat. Geo. story.

dchest2• 16 years ago

I'm pretty sure Media 1.0 also did and does this.

varjag3• 16 years ago

Mainstream printed media is much better with attribution in general.

wooster8• 16 years ago

I recently got back (almost exactly a month ago) from a month long climbing trip in Nepal with some friends.

We had three guides, all three of whom have climbed Everest multiple times. One of our guides, who has summited 5 times, described Everest as his "bad habit".

As a relative newbie to high altitude mountaineering (the highest I got was ~19,850 feet), climbing in Nepal was really, really hard. You are never warm, the food sucks, camping for long periods at high altitude sucks rather a lot, you are never clean, altitude sickness sucks, pooping in an 8" hole in the ground sucks, not eating much protein sucks, but… the views are spectacular, the people you meet are amazing, the place itself is awe-inspiring, the wildlife is interesting and diverse, the peace of the place is fantastic, and the mountains… well, the mountains are something special.

I can see why some people spend their lives chasing summits, and I can also see why some people, having seen their first summit, turn away from the mountains forever and never come back. While we were in Nepal, within two days of our summit push, our head guide had two friends die. One died on Cho Oyu in an avalanche while traversing a glacier. The other died on a relatively unknown mountain in Tibet. Both were world-class mountaineers. These were people who no mountaineer in the world would accuse of being irresponsible, inexperienced, unprofessional, or, even, unsafe. They were serious mountaineers with long resumes and respected records.

That said, exploration is always a serious business, and when you're out at the sharp end, sometimes you get cut. Without these people, however, and the part of humanity which they represent, we would never expand our experience of what it is to be human and our knowledge of the space around us.

Even with Mount Everest, where the experience has been honed to the point where there are professionals whose entire job it is to make sure clients make it to the top… it's friggin' hard. Having been to nearly 20k feet, I have nothing but respect for people who can make it to 29,029 feet. Climbing that far is hard, no matter how you do it. I can only imagine the feeling of being on top of the world, and quite frankly I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge, personally, of tackling Mt. Everest. I will certainly never make fun of anyone who has climbed that mountain.

Given the difference in oxygen between where I got to and the top of Everest, I don't think I can comment on the impairment of cognitive facilities climbing Mount Everest imparts. However: there's a good reason most responsible climbs leave a controller in radio contact from base camp or Camp 1 in charge of final decisions. Oxygen deprivation is a serious impediment to rational decision making.

So, yeah, go ahead and don't climb where you don't feel comfortable. Just don't go judging those who do without having done a high climb yourself.

antidaily2• 16 years ago

tl;dr This guy pooped in a 8" hole.

wooster8• 16 years ago

I'm not sure why everyone is down-modding you. Pooping in an 8" hole and climbing to 19,850 feet seems like a pretty good summary of the experience.

Edit: I might actually use that as my short summary of the trip.

spoiledtechie• 16 years ago

We modd you down, because if you aren't here to contribute then maybe you shouldn't contribute.

bambax• 16 years ago

The article does not judge; in fact it says:

whatever the preparation and outlandish cost, perhaps it's not simply ruthless determination that makes someone abandon their team mates, and yet still have the energy to summit. In such alien conditions, utterly hostile to human life, climbers might face their own mortality. Under the spectre of pure, unadulterated fear, they must realize that they are beyond help as well as beyond helping anyone else.

If they don't, they fall among those who never leave, abandoned on Everest.

JoachimSchipper2• 16 years ago

Can you elaborate a bit on why you'd see people wanting to do this? I mean, I understand that mountain climbing affords a nice view, and I understand that it's a feat that you can tell people about, but I can't imagine being willing to take a risk as large as Mt. Everest for those reasons.

paulgerhardt• 16 years ago

http://www.amazon.com/Eiger-Dreams-Ventures-Among-Mountains/...

thaumaturgy2• 16 years ago

Mountaineering in general is not just about the views, wildlife, and other unique memories, it's also about being probably the hardest thing you will ever do, mentally, and physically.

One of my hobbies used to be brutal enduro-hiking, and my little trip up Rainier years ago still stands out in my memory as the hardest thing I've ever done.

If HN readers really need that entrepreneur spin on this, then I'd suggest that there are a lot of parallels between summiting (and knowing when not to summit) and entrepreneurship.

Everest specifically is probably more because it's a trophy; there are a lot of mountains out there that would afford a pretty similar challenge.

wooster8• 16 years ago

It's just the way some people are wired, and sometimes peoples' wiring changes. They may decide they're not comfortable with the idea of someone else being able to do something they can't. They may have always wanted to climb the highest mountain in the world. They may just want to add it to their summit collection. Sometimes it's just a job. Sometimes it's a trophy, or the crowning achievement of a lifetime.

I used to have arguments with one of my old roommates about space exploration. He would argue that if we found a planet several thousand light years away that could support human life, we'd never get there because nobody would volunteer to go. I could never get through to him that there are people who will take any risk to get to do something like that, even if it meant only being memorialized in the memories of their distant descendants or being frozen for a few thousand years and never again seeing everything they'd ever known.

However, human history supports the idea that there will always be those few who are willing to do things for reasons which evade the rest of the human race. That's just the way we're wired.

Evgeny• 16 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mallory

Mallory is famously quoted as having replied to the question "Why do you want to climb Mount Everest?" with the retort: "Because it's there", which has been called "the most famous three words in mountaineering".

matwood2• 16 years ago

Some quotes:

"Mountains are the means, the man is the end. The goal is not to reach the tops of mountains, but to improve the man." - Walter Bonatti

"When I rest I feel utterly lifeless except that my throat burns when I draw breath...I can scarcely go on. No despair, no happiness, no anxiety. I have not lost the mastery of my feelings, there are actually no more feelings. I consist only of will." - Messner on the first solo ascent of Everest

I have never been to Everest (would like to one day), but I climb 14ers in CO all the time. Climbing at high altitude is simply the hardest thing I've ever done from a mental, physical, and emotional standpoint. Once I started climbing everything else in life just seemed easier.

JabavuAdams6• 16 years ago

Some people like extreme situations.

I remember the John Krakauer Book _Into Thin Air_, about an Everest disaster, made me want to climb it -- I haven't.

It's the whole "yeah people die, but it won't be me" attitude.

I remember coming out of Saving Private Ryan thinking "that looks like fun", despite what I know intellectually.

roqetman• 16 years ago

To feel well and fully alive sometimes requires one to step out of the boundaries of comfort (and some would say sanity). I honestly believe that you don't appreciate your life as much as when you've been close to losing it.

johnyzee2• 16 years ago

> These were people who no mountaineer in the world would accuse of being irresponsible, inexperienced, unprofessional, or, even, unsafe.

This is what gets me about mountain climbing - you can't really be good at it, at least not in the sense that it will save your life. There are so many unknowable, uncontrollable factors that make the difference between life and death, to the extent that you play Russian Roulette with each climb, the only reward being a spectacular view.

I saw Touching the Void (recommended) a few months ago and it described how on one occasion two climbers basically climbed onto a snow overhang and when it broke it was too late to do anything about it. There was no way to know that they were heading onto an overhang at the time, it looked solid as anything else. This is not a skills-based discipline, just crazy gambling. I don't get it.

jvdh• 16 years ago

That is exactly what makes mountaineering so awesome, at least for me.

In modern society most people have lost their respect for nature. Going into the mountains and climbing them makes you respect nature in all its awesome force. You're walking a very fine line, where you're taking risks but also mitigating those risks by using proper equipment.

For the most part this is a skills based discipline, but the fact remains, you're dealing with nature, an unknown force.

jedbrown10• 16 years ago

> not in the sense that it will save your life

There are countless counter-examples to this claim. For example, Jerzy Kukuczka's spent three nights out above 8000m on K2 without food, water, tent, or sleeping bag. During this time, he covered substantial technical ground to summit their new route (the South Face) and descended safely without assistance and even without frostbite. His partner, Tadeusz Piotrowski, was suffering more seriously from the exposure and fell while downclimbing ice unroped. Kukuczka was not just "lucky", he was prepared and knew how to last in extreme conditions. His decision-making with regard to batteries (his headlamp never worked when it mattered) and rope (he died when the second-hand 6mm rope he was leading on cut) was not so good.

Touching the Void is a great story and Joe Simpson is an entertaining writer, but he's also notoriously accident-prone and has some peculiar risk analysis judging from his writing about places that I have climbed. Sure, cutting edge alpine-style climbing is dangerous and requires a great deal of competence, but it's still not crazy gamble you describe as long as you make objective decisions.

jaredhansen• 16 years ago

>the only reward being a spectacular view.

But that's precisely not the main reward. You can get a better view from an airplane, and who cares? Climbing isn't about the view any more than a solo circumnavigation in a small sailboat -- sure, you see amazing things and they're breathtakingly beautiful, but that's not why you do it.

I'm not a mountaineer and probably never will be, but I can definitely see the draw. It's the challenge itself, and the fact that the so much rests on your ability to focus and make rational decisions in the face of extreme danger.

kore2• 16 years ago

> You are never warm, the food sucks, camping for long periods at high altitude sucks rather a lot, you are never clean, altitude sickness sucks, pooping in an 8" hole in the ground sucks, not eating much protein sucks, but… the views are spectacular, the people you meet are amazing, the place itself is awe-inspiring, the wildlife is interesting and diverse, the peace of the place is fantastic, and the mountains… well, the mountains are something special.

Great post. For those interested in experiencing the splendors of the Himalayas with less of the grittiness, I'd suggest booking a trek. Everest base camp treks can be done in 2 weeks or less for a modest price, along with many other scenic and adventurous treks in the area - no mountaineering needed. Tea houses provide an alternative to camping, no need to "poop in holes," and I found the food available great. You can't escape the lack of bathing, nor the possibility of altitude sickness - but I had an amazing time, and hope to go back some day. My one suggestion: go during low season.

mason552• 16 years ago

Do you have any links or just perhaps some Google terms to search for? This is pretty interesting.

brazzy• 16 years ago

Climbing Mt. Everest has nothing to do with exploration, and hasn't had for a long time.

It's an industry catering to reckless thrill-seekers.

mwsfc2• 16 years ago

Has an industry sprung up around climbing Everest? Yes. Are all Everest climbers reckless thrill-seekers? No, no and No.

RickHull• 16 years ago

> Climbing Mt. Everest has nothing to do with exploration

At an organizational level, you are correct. There are very few places left unexplored by the human race on this planet. However, on an individual level, if you have never been to the summit of Everest, then it is very much a personal exploration. Maps and guides reduce the required effort from superhuman to formidable, but I see a clear exploratory factor.

At a personal level -- answering the question "what have I explored" rather than "what has the human race explored" -- the chasm between having crossed the Hillary Step and merely having read a description of it is vast. You are exploring your own limits in a purely figurative sense, and this could be boiled down to "thrill-seeking", but you are also literally exploring the terrain and geography, figuring out how to hoist your own personal mass beyond each obstacle. It is this very personal sense of exploration that I think drives most non-professional mountaineers.

Also, even at a macro / organizational level, completely new routes are tried (explored!), and the route through the Khumbu Icefall changes every year.

webwright2• 16 years ago

I'm going to go ahead and judge. 1 in 10. Your have a 10% chance of dying if you attempt a summit, right? How much pain is your untimely death going to cause if it happens? How many everest orphans and widows are there? Include in that the considerable cost and time investment to do this when you could be creating something, exploring something that has a conceivable chance of helping humanity, or just plain investing in helping others.

No, this is a hugely selfish act. Other folks are right that people are indeed wired to get addicted to these types of feelings, but every day people choose NOT to give into their wiring. I respect THAT a lot more than climbing Everest.

Anticipating a straw man: No, we don't have a duty to eliminate all unnecessary risk from our lives. But a single act with a 10% mortality rate seems reckless.

jodrellblank4• 16 years ago

No, this is a hugely selfish act

You say that like being selfish is automatically and unquestionably a bad thing.

efalcao• 16 years ago

I think the actual mortality rate is closer to 2%. I don't know if that changes your opinion at all. Frankly, I feel that even at 2% mortality, it's a pretty selfish act if anybody else depends on you.

dasil0036• 16 years ago

It takes all kinds. People with the balls to summit Everest are rare, and they provide great stories to humanity, just the same as astronauts, deep sea divers or spelunkers. I can admire that because it's unusual and inspiring, something that can not be said for people playing it safe.

I won't judge you for your judgement, and I might even share it for people mountaineers who have kids, etc, but I can not agree with your premise that risking death is automatically bad because of how others might feel about it. There's more to life than staying alive.

neilc• 16 years ago

Your have a 10% chance of dying if you attempt a summit, right?

10% of people who attempt a summit die, but that does not mean that attempting a summit necessarily has a 10% chance of death. That 10% figure is not conditioned on your individual preparation, your guides, and your fellow climbers. I would guess that with the right preparation, the chance of death is much less than 10%.

BlazingFrog• 16 years ago

As reasonable as your assessment is, humanity has not gotten so far in the fields of ideas, philosophy, technology in general or any other field you can think of by being purely altruistic. Inspiration is a powerful feeling that drives progress. An example that comes to mind is how Galileo chose to defy the powerful figures of his time and was, admittedly, willing to die for it. He had children.

ianferrel• 16 years ago

10% is the wrong statistic. According to the article, for every 10 people who reach the summit, 1 person dies in the attempt. So, already, that's somewhat less than 1/10, because not every person who dies does so after reaching the summit.

But it also doesn't count the many people who start climbing the mountain but turn around before the summit and make it down alive.

The true statistic is likely much less than 10%.

boredguy82• 16 years ago

10% failure rate is bad on a website about startups?

Now, we're talking life instead of life savings, but I find it hard to say that their decision is wrong in any ethical or moral sense, and I'm curious what moral framework would justify your viewpoint. Additionally, burning through your life savings (and that of friends/family) can easily cause more long-term harm than having a mom or dad that died while climbing Everest. You just think that one risk is acceptable because it doesn't terminate in death. But there are greater things to fear than dying.

Additionally, suppose there were some not-to-distant dystopia in which reading non-approved books were a capital offense, and the state/corporate/whatever apparatus caught 10% of all offenders and had a 100% conviction rate for that 10%. Would that suddenly make reading wrong? I think most people have the intuition that the law is wrong, not the reading.

Similarly, I have a hard time seeing why 10% of people dying while doing something somehow makes it wrong per se.

david_shaw2• 16 years ago

How much pain is your untimely death going to cause if it happens? How many everest orphans and widows are there? Include in that the considerable cost and time investment to do this when you could be creating something, exploring something that has a conceivable chance of helping humanity, or just plain investing in helping others. No, this is a hugely selfish act.

I was going to create a startup, but unfortunately I think it's just too selfish of an act. What if by giving up my cubicle I screw over my family and pets that depend on me? Can I be so selfish as to give up my livelihood, my life savings and dedicating every waking moment to making my startup succeed?

I would argue that creating a startup--much like climbing Everest--is a risky endeavor with unspeakable rewards. I am not a mountaineer, and I would never risk my life on a mountain just for the pride.

But you have to wonder, as we sit here talking about it on the Internet, do these people know how to really live in a way we haven't experienced? Maybe it's the physical exertion or the satisfaction of accomplishing one's dreams, but you can't chalk up every hardcore mountaineer (or any other deadly hobby, for that matter) as mere adrenaline junkies. The real debate here is whether or not it's worth it to risk your life in order to live it to the fullest.

bradly• 16 years ago

1 in 10 is the stat over the past 50 years or so. The past 10 years has seen major changes to Everest summits that make that number much, much lower. Fixed ropes are much more prevalent now which has made a huge difference in keeping people safe, as well as reducing bottle-necks so that climbers spend less time in the dead zone.

Last year there were 330 summits and 5 deaths, so roughly 1.5%

fishercs• 16 years ago

It's the extraordinary who motivate others to excel in what they believe in, whether its the day to day of raising a family or tackling a summit nearly 30,000 feet from sea level. I have huge amounts of respect for anyone willing to even attempt this and it shows you just how far focus and determination can take a person.

Thanks for the link O.P, it really made an impact on certain priorities and perspective.

jaxtapose2• 16 years ago

> exploration is always a serious business

What did you explore? Nothing, it's all documented, explored, exploited. Hell, it's a tourist attraction.

wooster8• 16 years ago

What I did would be best classified as adventure travel.

The two people I was talking about in the quote you took out of context, however, were serious explorers and mountaineers. One had a few dozen first ascents under his belt, and the other had summited Everest 19 times.

wooster8• 16 years ago

s/Cho Oyu/Baruntse/

Oops.

leoc• 16 years ago

It says something about these heroes that none are willing to brave Everest to recover (or even to cover) the body of Green Boots instead of pursuing their own self-actualisation on the summit. Never mind the matter of poor Sharp.

mks3• 16 years ago

Articles like this are very suggestive - of course while in the warm, in front of the computer everyone would try to rescue the poor climbers. However add difficult terrain, height, snow, fatigue and race with the clock and you have wholly different story. Consider how much effort is needed to transport someone by Mountain Rescue teams in lower mountains (<4000m) - teams of 2-5, lot of ropes, pullies and special transport stretchers.

Even seasoned climbers admit that you are pretty much solo on the high mountain. The strongest ones with highest morals have even tried helping some other party at these altitude but with very little effect. The moral choice is hard - would you put your life at very high risk just to attempt rescue with very little probability?

dkarl2• 16 years ago

I'm pretty sure the moral choice was easy at first -- of course you help! -- and then got harder as there were more and more tragic outcomes, until it swung all the way to becoming an easy "no." It is morally correct, perhaps mandatory depending on your beliefs, to value your own life as much as another person's, especially one climber valuing his own life as much as another's. You have to balance the odds of dying yourself against the odds of saving another person. Plus, under those conditions you would be risking several lives -- an entire team -- on helping a single person who has a slim chance of survival, in a situation where the rescuers have little more strength than what is required to sustain and control their own bodies. This assessment might be considered unduly pessimistic if there were not plenty of deadly history supporting it, but there is. Therefore, it seems like an easy decision to me. Not that it matters what I think, since I'll never be there to make it!

mfukar4• 16 years ago

The moral dilemma quickly becomes a question against your own survival instinct, in places like the Everest.

InclinedPlane• 16 years ago

Ultimately it is a matter of priorities. Yes rescue is difficult in the death zone. Yes people are generally on their own up there and if you fuck up and die it's on you.

But on the other hand, why are you climbing? It takes resources and a very serious effort to get to the summit and back down. And it takes a particular kind of person to do that, to use all those resources and expend all that effort while stepping over corpses or soon-to-be corpses of others. That's not mountaineering to me.

I have never been on Everest and likely never will be, so I can't say whether I would attempt a rescue. Nevertheless, I don't think I could live with myself if I pursued the summit while others were dying.

Semiapies2• 16 years ago

This is my reaction as well. I can understand hard choices in survival situations. However, there's more than a little difference between people stranded in a lifeboat and people traipsing past the dying on their vacations.

I don't buy people chest-beating about the danger and adventure of their recreational choices, then explaining that the reason they passed by a collapsed or injured person to continue on to the summit and cross something off their bucket lists was because to do otherwise would be just too dangerous.

cookiecaper• 16 years ago

I agree, but I also want to point out that in most cases people are only going to be passing already-dead corpses, not living people who need to be helped or saved.

Having just read information on the 1996 Everest blizzard, it seems that guides and other climbers generally try to help those that are dying or struggling, but the options are few, and the oblique, ignorant "If they're still breathing there's still hope!" just creates more deaths in the long run. You can only do so much, and if someone is too far gone, there is no point in risking the death of the would-be rescuers in a futile attempt.

jedbrown10• 16 years ago

I call bullshit. The problem is that certain mountains, notable the "seven summits", most of the 8000m peaks, and a few others such as the Matterhorn, Mont Blanc, and Rainier are overrun by people who are completely clueless. These aren't climbers, they are rich people who want to tick off a box on their list of life accomplishments. These peaks are heavily commercialized and guiding outfits are selling something outrageously irresponsible because there is a lucrative market for it.

The climbing world is full of dramatic remote high-altitude rescues. The following story is a great example taken from google's cache of Alpinist's archives (the original which seems to be no longer available was at http://www.alpinist.com/doctcl/ALP11/profile-trango):

The great epic of Trango Tower began on September 9, 1990. Takeyasu Minamiura, a thirty-three-year old Japanese climber, stood just under Trango's summit with his paraglider sail spread out on the snow behind him. He had just spent the past forty days soloing a new thirty-pitch A4 route on the east prow (Minamiura called his a "capsule style" ascent, but it is the closest to true alpine style that any first ascent on Trango has come), finishing the line that Wilford and I had started in 1989. As if pulling off one of the greatest big-wall solos of all time wasn't enough, he planned to cap his adventure with an airborne descent to the glacier, 2000 meters below.

After reaching the summit, he committed himself to the scheme with Samurai dedication, throwing off his haulbags, which were attached to a chute. Ominously, the gear flight went awry: his bags hit the cliff, then slid at warp speed down the gully to the Dunge Glacier. Low on food and with no ropes, Minamiura waited for a favorable wind for his takeoff. When a head-on breeze came around, he tugged on the riser cords of his rig. The canopy inflated.

But as soon as he stepped off the cliff, his chute collided with the wall. It deflated like a pricked balloon, sending him sliding down the south face of Trango Tower. Forty-five meters into his fall, the paraglider snagged on a rock horn, and Minamiura stopped. He hung at the end of a tangle of strings, wheezing from the impact, his feet dangling in space and his smashed eyeglasses bent around his face. The ice axe strapped to his back had prevented his spine from breaking.

He kept his cool, pulled out his radio and contacted his four Japanese friends, Masanori Hoshina, Satoshi Kimoto, Masahiro Kosaka and Takaaki Sasakura, who had just completed a twenty-four-day ascent of the Norwegian Buttress on Great Trango. Rather than asking them to rescue him, he told them he had had an accident and requested a helicopter.

The next morning, he disentangled himself from his parachute cords and traversed five meters to a narrow ledge. This place became his home for the next six days.

Minamiura's Mayday sent his friends scrambling. While two men went to look for him visually, Kimoto and Hoshina marched to a Pakistani army helipad at Payu, twelve miles away. On September 11, in a stripped-down Lama heli hot-rodded for high altitude, Kimoto and Hoshina flew to Trango Tower. The machine shook violently at 6000 meters, but they spotted Minamiura waving from his perch. Crosswinds prevented the pilot from landing or lowering a climber onto the narrow summit, and they radioed Minamiura that a heli rescue was impossible.

Instead, Kimoto and Hoshina embarked on a daring plan: they would be flown from the Dunge Glacier to the Trango Glacier, and from there climb the original British Route.

No one had repeated this route. When the Japanese started up it, they found canyon-like ice gullies and gaping chimneys festooned with ancient fixed rope. Fourteen years of ultraviolet degradation and stonefall had reduced the ropes to bootlace strength. Clasping ascenders to the tattered lines, they gingerly moved up. Often, they belayed each other on a separate rope and placed protection while jumaring the old cords. "Yes, those ropes very dangerous," laughed Hoshina when I met him in 1994.

While the rescuers battled weathered ropes and waterfalls pouring down the Fissure Boysen, Minamiura waited. On September 12 a helicopter dropped food and first aid, but Minamiura couldn't catch the package. The nights of September 13 and 14 were cold and sleepless. Minamiura kept in radio contact with Takaaki Sasakura at base camp, talking about the meals they'd eat back in Japan. His thirst was becoming unbearable.

On September 15 the helicopter dropped more food, but it too disappeared. Then, on the radio, the pilot alerted Minamiura that a can of cheese had jammed in a flake fifteen feet above the ledge. Minamiura knew that if he left his bivy he might slip off, but he was starving and climbed to the flake on wobbly legs. He immediately found the cheese and ate it. It was his first food in six days.

On September 16 Hoshina and Kimoto rappelled to Minamiura, having blitzed the British Route in three days. The trio continued down by the Slovenian Route. By September 18 they were back on the Dunge Glacier. Minamiura had lived on Trango Tower for forty-nine days, the last twenty-two of them without a break.

mks3• 16 years ago

Nice story. However it takes place at much lower altitude (around 6000m). Trango is great climbing area with demanding climbs but it is entirely different category than Everest.

It is not saying that one can not succeed in saving someones life (even if it is highly unlikely). It is more if you are willing to risk your life to do it. If there weren't people risking lifes in rescue there would be no firefighters or mountain rescue. But one can hardly look down at people covering their butt first in extreme situations of high altitudes.

I agree that some mountains are heavily commercialized though.

jasonkester• 16 years ago

My relatives sometimes ask whether I'm 'still doing that mountain climbing thing?'. I'm pretty sure they think that this is what I'm up to.

I'm sure I'd fall in love with high altitude mountaineering (all other aspects of climbing are so addictive that it follows) but I've always made a point of staying away. The statistics are all there to see. I'll stick with the rocks, thank you.

My personal rule is that if it's cold enough that I'm tempted to put a shirt on, it's too close to mountaineering and it's time to move south.

matwood2• 16 years ago

My personal rule is that if it's cold enough that I'm tempted to put a shirt on, it's too close to mountaineering and it's time to move south.

That's funny. My friends and family think I'm crazy as I research all the things required to do a winter time 14er summit attempt. I'll probably spend this winter practicing my back country skills in general and then next winter plan the hike.

TheEzEzz• 16 years ago

Agreed. Climbing is enjoyable. Being cold... just sucks. I'll save the hardcore tests of my mental integrity for startups and scientific research.

weaksauce• 16 years ago

I am with you on that accord. Being cold sucks and climbing is really addicting. Alpinism is too dangerous and cold for my tastes but to each their own. Life is risk management. Not everyone rides motorcycles even though they are really enjoyable in fair weather.

ra2• 16 years ago

For a gripping first hand account of the danger and sheer lunacy of today's Mount Everest, I highly recommend "Into Thin Air", by Jon Krakauer

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=upIXVwLhGj0C

codelust• 16 years ago

Excerpt: http://outsideonline.com/outside/destinations/199609/travel-...

wyclif3• 16 years ago

I second the recommendation, I read that a few years ago and it is an incredible story. Krakauer tells it as one who was gripped by Everest fever, fascinated by the mountain itself but also the colourful personalities drawn to the most serious level of high altitude mountaineering-- but also a man who has seen his friends succumb to the madness of obsession, and ultimately death. It was hard for me to put down; a compelling read for anyone interested in travel or the outdoors.

ra2• 16 years ago

If you enjoyed that you've probably also read "Touching The Void".

IMHO the ultimate tale of high mountain survival: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=KnRdFe5TXVkC

jessriedel• 16 years ago

Yep. I saw the Everest IMax movie, and thought "Wow, that seems spectacular. Maybe if I'm able someday I'll try it." Then I read "Into Thin Air" and immediately changed my mind. Great read.

wazoox• 16 years ago

Read this absolutely fantastic article: Into thin air by John Krakauer. http://outsideonline.com/outside/destinations/199609/199609_...

mark_h• 16 years ago

There's a few videos I've seen recently -- I've also just been trekking in the Everest region and watched and read a lot before going -- that do an amazing job of conveying that summit-fever attitude.

The one that most sticks in my mind is this talk on K2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zkC9IMQmYA It's an hour long, but I highly recommend it.

There was an incredible documentary, which you can probably find online, called "Doctors in the Death Zone" which followed a team of doctors studying the effects of altitude on themselves as they attempted Everest. There's some pretty horrific footage of a team they encounter along the way watching their companion, in obvious distress, drunkenly attempt to reach their position, while they just wait.

Lastly, this talk from TEDMed is by the only doctor on Everest during the 1996 disaster, and it's both a great depiction of the main route, and a frightening reminder of just how dangerous it still is up there despite the number of summits and knowledge of the route these days: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSidnKdH5_4

araneae4• 16 years ago

The article quotes a 1/50 chance of dying.

For perspective, only 1/20 suicide attempts are successful. That means that climbing Mt. Everest is only half as deadly as trying to actively kill yourself.

jedbrown10• 16 years ago

This is a silly mis-application of statistics. Risk in both scenarios is highly dependent on preparation and decision making.

araneae4• 16 years ago

It's not meant to be accurate. In another comment someone claimed that 2% was "low" and I'm just pointing out that climbing Mt. Everest is one of the more risky things you can do. Obviously at an individual level it loses meaning, but people often use death rate statistics that don't apply individually to assess risk in a more general sense.

mfukar4• 16 years ago

Only when it comes to suicide, better preparation means a higher chance of dying.

hook• 16 years ago

My friend's dad climbed k2. It's like rolling a tetrahedron.

CWuestefeld• 16 years ago

According to wikipedia, Everest is no where near the most dangerous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander

Of 14 8km+ summits, it appears that Everest's death rate is only 5.7%, while Annapurna leads at 42.85% (!)

This weighs against the commercialization of Everest trend theory, I think.

yan• 16 years ago

For those interested in mountaineering, I highly, highly recommend listening to Chris Warner's talk on summitting K2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zkC9IMQmYA

A very very gripping talk by someone who's climbed Everest (and K2, a more dangerous ascent) multiple times. I saw this in person (Chris is the founder of the chain of climbing gyms I used to frequent) and it's even more gripping in person.

physcab• 16 years ago

I was fortunate to hear Peter Hillary speak last week while I was home on Thanksgiving break. His stories were amazing. I was absolutely floored the entire two hours. A couple quotes I remember (and damn I wish I brought a pen and paper)...some of these may be paraphrases:

"On the top of Everest, your perception of reality is distorted. I remember thinking, 'wow, its really cloudy down there' while looking down the mountain. When I got back to base camp, I looked at the pictures we had taken. There were no clouds. It was clear as day"

"People often ask me what I'm most afraid of. Sure the elements are tough...but what gets me is more mental. Often when you hike you are alone in your thoughts for days,weeks, even months at a time. You have nothing to do but think, and if you don't have the mental discipline, you can deteriorate quickly. Its important to have good relationships with your family, your friends, and especially your climbing mate"

"I once went on a trip to the North Pole with some friends and my dad Edmund. You may know them. They were Buzz Aldrin and Steve Fosset"

"The last time I went to Everest, National Geographic sponsored the hike and the plan was to have a 3-way phone conversation with my dad and the [CBS/NBC/ABC] affiliate in New York because it was the 50th anniversary of my dad's first climb. When we got to the summit, I phoned in despite my hands rapidly becoming frostbitten and the affiliate said, 'Gosh, we're really busy here. Can you hold on a minute. Theres a conflict going on in Afghanistan right now'...'What? I can see Afghanistan!'"

"When I went to the South Pole I had to train in a rather unusual manner. On that trip we had to pull a [x100lb] sack of supplies behind us for a month straight while cross-country skiing. To train, I tied a bunch of tires around my waist and went jogging with my son in a stroller. You can imagine the weird looks I got"

jodrellblank4• 16 years ago

"A National Geographic climber originally on Everest to document Brian Blessed's (ultimately botched) attempt at summiting"

On QI recently, they said on Brian Blessed's closest approach, he abandoned his climb and turned back to help an injured climber. In the context of this essay about bodies it's not on to call that a "botched" attempt.

jodrellblank4• 16 years ago

How far is materials technology from being able to keep people warm there?

TheCondor• 16 years ago

Materials isn't the problem. No amount of warm clothes make you feel warm when your body is losing oxygen.

jodrellblank4• 16 years ago

The losing more oxygen than you can breathe part is only in the death zone, the last <3,000 feet, from what I can tell.

Apart from that, I'm less wondering about feeling warm and more wondering about avoiding severe frostbite (or is that already mostly a thing of the past?)

klbarry• 16 years ago

Jesus - Annapurna is absolutely brutal, almost a 50% death rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander

BeachVentures2• 16 years ago

Some friends and I are climbing some of the tallest mountains in the world (including Everest) to raise money for cancer research. I must say that these pictures certainly scare me a bit, but I really believe in our cause. We are starting our quest this January, in south America where we will climb Aconcagua, the tallest mountain in the western and southern hemisphere, and the tallest outside Asia.

We would love some donations from HN community www.climb4coloncancer.org

We are also looking for cancer survivors interested in joining and sponsors. Email us if interested!

Ivan

killedbydeath2• 16 years ago

Is it possible to donate you so that you don't climb?

BeachVentures2• 16 years ago

My friend's dad and also one of the original members of our organization died of cancer. They both asked to have their ashes brought to Everest and I think this is a worthy pursuit. We are tryingto raise 100k by climbing 100k feet, so we will go through a lot of hard work. We would love your support.

T_S_• 16 years ago

I think the risk involved is crazy, stupid and selfish. I judge therefore I am ;-).

However, at least these mountaineers effectively experiment with their lives in a relatively open manner. It's too bad the drug cheats in athletics aren't able to be as open. Then we might learn something useful from their crazy, stupid and selfish behavior.

gsivil• 16 years ago

http://outsideonline.com/outside/destinations/199609/travel-...

True Everest Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer

Everest deals with trespassers harshly: the dead vanish beneath the snows. While the living struggle to explain what happened. And why. A survivor of the mountain's worst disaster examines the business of Mount Everest and the steep price of ambition.

By Jon Krakauer

aleem• 16 years ago

"It is not the mountain we conquer but ourselves" - Sir Edmund Hilary, first man to conquer everest

Everest is littered with dead, exposed bodies

Related Stories