Man plans to jump off Mt. Everest........

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Good God......

Discovery plans to air TV special featuring man's jump off Mount Everest using wing suit | Fox News

[Drake]

Awesome.

[EagleFan]

Is the man going to say Thank You Jesus all the way down?

[claphamsa]

unrelated but the top trending article is....."Hurley denies she slept with prez"

yay fox.

[nol]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

unrelated but the top trending article is....."Hurley denies she slept with prez"

yay fox.

and the second comment on the page:

.........I WOULD PUT MY MONEY ON OBAMA GOING TO PRISON BEFORE I WOULD PUT MONEY ON THIS GUY JUMPING OFF EVEREST....

[B & B]

This will get the blood flowing. BTW - this video is over 2 years old.

Everest Schmeverst, Rene.

[molson]

It's an attention-grabbing idea for a stunt but I wonder how dangerous/difficult it is compared to other stuff one might jump off. I mean, Mt. Everest is 29,000 feet, but he's not jumping all the way to sea level, I presume, the area around Mt. Everest is pretty high up there too. So I guess the big challenge is the oxygen situation (and where to land). But do you need more oxygen to fly via wind suit that you would to say, hike up the mountain?

On the other hand, maybe I'm overthinking this. Motherfucker's jumping off Everest.

[Vince, Pt. II]

I also wonder how much the lack of oxygen will affect the physics of the wing suit. I would imagine that's part of the plan...but then again, this is the internet we're talking about.

[Jon]

I went to college with this guy.....
should be interesting.

[cartman]

Felix Baumgartner can only chuckle.

[BYU 14]

His works a little better than this guys.

[Buccaneer]

I was trying to figure out where he'll jump off at. Everest's summit, approaching from the SE or NE ridge is not pinnacle (too much snow or cornices). I guess further on down the ridge, you get a N/NW face which is a good drop but still not a sheer cliff. The Lhotze face is a good possibility but that's the next mountain over.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I was trying to figure out where he'll jump off at. Everest's summit, approaching from the SE or NE ridge is not pinnacle (too much snow or cornices). I guess further on down the ridge, you get a N/NW face which is a good drop but still not a sheer cliff. The Lhotze face is a good possibility but that's the next mountain over.

I was wondering the same thing.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

It's an attention-grabbing idea for a stunt but I wonder how dangerous/difficult it is compared to other stuff one might jump off. I mean, Mt. Everest is 29,000 feet, but he's not jumping all the way to sea level, I presume, the area around Mt. Everest is pretty high up there too. So I guess the big challenge is the oxygen situation (and where to land). But do you need more oxygen to fly via wind suit that you would to say, hike up the mountain?

On the other hand, maybe I'm overthinking this. Motherfucker's jumping off Everest.

Molson, I don't think you're over-thinking this. The air is much thinner at 29,035 feet. Choppers can't fly up there because the rotors don't have enough air to "bite". So it is a legitimate question whether or not the aerodynamics of a windsuit will properly function at that altitude.

[flere-imsaho]

Plus, you know, high winds.

[Blackadar]

He ain't doing it this year. The sherpas just walked off the job after the accident last week.

While no one disputes the work is risky and they should make decent money for the work, what bothers me is that from what I've heard, they've already been paid. So they knew what the job was, agreed to do it, showed up, took the money and left. I'm sure not all of them did this, but this seems to have not been reported by mainstream media so they look more sympathetic.

These guys aren't forced labor. They make 10x the average Nepalese salary in a year. They take the job precisely for the same reasons that guys are found on fishing boats in Alaska in December - the money is far better than anything else given their skill set. And once they reach the top of Everest, they can command substantial amounts of money to help other climbers get to the top.

Frankly, the best thing that could happen to climbing is if a couple of the teams said "fuck it", went up and summited on their own. Well, it would be better for everyone then perhaps the sherpas, who would be out of a well-paying job.

I don't begrudge them for asking for more, but I think this was a piss-poor way of doing it. They just left other people who were relying on them high and dry.

[Subby]

Yeah good luck to average joe summiting without the help of a sherpa. That will not end well.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

He ain't doing it this year. The sherpas just walked off the job after the accident last week.

While no one disputes the work is risky and they should make decent money for the work, what bothers me is that from what I've heard, they've already been paid. So they knew what the job was, agreed to do it, showed up, took the money and left. I'm sure not all of them did this, but this seems to have not been reported by mainstream media so they look more sympathetic.

These guys aren't forced labor. They make 10x the average Nepalese salary in a year. They take the job precisely for the same reasons that guys are found on fishing boats in Alaska in December - the money is far better than anything else given their skill set. And once they reach the top of Everest, they can command substantial amounts of money to help other climbers get to the top.

Frankly, the best thing that could happen to climbing is if a couple of the teams said "fuck it", went up and summited on their own. Well, it would be better for everyone then perhaps the sherpas, who would be out of a well-paying job.

I don't begrudge them for asking for more, but I think this was a piss-poor way of doing it. They just left other people who were relying on them high and dry.

Bucc and I have gone back and forth on this. I think that the current Everest approach is more exploitation than opportunity. Getting poor people to do a dangerous and hard job you don't or can't do I think is unethical. Throwing money at the poor savages is the least the rich climbers can do.

It is too bad Everest is the tallest, yet the most accessible of the 8k peaks. To me, Everest should be like the Boston Marathon, you must qualify at an elite pace/approach.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Bucc and I have gone back and forth on this. I think that the current Everest approach is more exploitation than opportunity. Getting poor people to do a dangerous and hard job you don't or can't do I think is unethical.

Yet this happens every day. I don't hear any outrage over the people who end up fishing on Deadliest Catch. These guys are guides and porters because they get paid good money to do so.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

It is too bad Everest is the tallest, yet the most accessible of the 8k peaks. To me, Everest should be like the Boston Marathon, you must qualify at an elite pace/approach.

Average Joes don't climb 8m (not k) peaks, regardless of how much money they have. To set foot on Everest, you're pretty damn elite.

Everest is what it is, so wishing it wasn't doesn't help. It is every accessible and unless Nepal and China wish to shut down the mountain (it won't happen), then the reality is that it's going to remain very popular by high mountaineering standards.

FYI, Cho Oyu is the easiest 8m peak.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Yet this happens every day. I don't hear any outrage over the people who end up fishing on Deadliest Catch. These guys are guides and porters because they get paid good money to do so.



Average Joes don't climb 8m (not k) peaks, regardless of how much money they have. To set foot on Everest, you're pretty damn elite.

Everest is what it is, so wishing it wasn't doesn't help. It is every accessible and unless Nepal and China wish to shut down the mountain (it won't happen), then the reality is that it's going to remain very popular by high mountaineering standards.

FYI, Cho Oyu is the easiest 8m peak.

Yep, I get your argument. I just don't think that giving relatively little money (as opposed to crab guys) somehow makes the exploitation ok.

After watching that biker lug attempt Everest twice on that discovery show, I stopped thinking this was a mountain for elite climbers.

[Buccaneer]

Yet it's not all about money for that can be saved and sponsored, as oppose to pocket change by the rich. Doug Hanson was a postal worker and he scrounged twice, including money from school kids.

This year, there were approx. 334 permits to climb up (as oppose to trek). While that's a lot for an 8k mountain, it's still a small fraction of those that can climb high peaks. The expeditions, which nearly everyone sign on with, tend to weed out people pretty well, unless they get greedy like fischer's expedition or typically the South Africans. I know a couple Everest expeditions have a minimum qual of having to climb above 7k previously.

It's like anything else - how much should one restrict freedom solely based on price or elitism? I don't know myself.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Yep, I get your argument. I just don't think that giving relatively little money (as opposed to crab guys) somehow makes the exploitation ok.

When you look at the raw numbers, crab guys >>>> sherpas.
When you look at the comparison to the local average income (which makes more sense), sherpas >>>> crab guys.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

After watching that biker lug attempt Everest twice on that discovery show, I stopped thinking this was a mountain for elite climbers.

I don't know who that "biker lug" is unless you're talking about Goran Kropp, but that dude was pretty elite so I don't think you're referring to him. Plus, he's been dead for a decade.

As for being elite, it's a matter of opinion. Everest doesn't require much technical climbing prowess, but does require a helluva lot of endurance. You could be one of the best technical climbers around and not be able to do it because you don't have the endurance. In the same regard, you could not have a great deal of technical climbing skill but have enough endurance to make it to the top relatively easily. So defining "who" belongs on the mountain is pretty useless.

I will say that you should know how to use a pair of crampons before attempting Everest, though. But as far as training goes, you could train your endurance like hell, spend some time climbing Rainier and be relatively close to being ready. The only factor left is the acclimatization, but that's pretty a pretty variable factor - you could acclimatize one time pretty easily and have trouble another. And how do you prove that anyway? Climb Kibo (Kilimanjaro)? Aconcagua? Neither prepares you for Everest. So barring climbing another 8m peak - many of which are more dangerous than Everest - how do you limit the mountain to elite climbers? How do you even define elite?

To address Bucc's point, if the prerequisite is a 7m peak, then are you saying those who "only" climbed Denali (which is in many ways harder than Everest) aren't qualified? Shit, I'd just go in one trip and tag Lhakpa Ri (7000m peak) before going to work on Everest. Yet Lhakpa Ri is pretty much a cakewalk.

In the disaster of '96, arguably the least qualified climber was Krakauer, yet he was very technically skilled. But he'd never been above 18,000 feet. Yet he did great, while other climbers who had more 8m experience - like Bucc's Doug Hansen - didn't make it at all.

[Subby]

I am not going to argue whether I think the walk off is just or not (I believe it absolutely is), but I do urge everyone to read Jon Krakauer's excellent piece in the New Yorker about the disaster and resulting repercussions.

Sherpas, Death, and Anger on Everest : The New Yorker

[Subby]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

After watching that biker lug attempt Everest twice on that discovery show, I stopped thinking this was a mountain for elite climbers.

This is absolutely a mountain for elite climbers who are doing unaided climbs. "Members" doing the climbs - not so much.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Subby

I am not going to argue whether I think the walk off is just or not (I believe it absolutely is), but I do urge everyone to read Jon Krakauer's excellent piece in the New Yorker about the disaster and resulting repercussions.

Sherpas, Death, and Anger on Everest : The New Yorker

Yes, the sherpas are asking for more of a share of the fees paid to the government. I think we all agree that's a good thing.

Yet here's the rub. Nepal has already been paid their fees. By walking off now, the sherpas are only hurting the people that pay them directly. Do you think relations between the climbing companies and the sherpas will improve? If I were a client of one of those companies, I'd be fucking steamed. After all, I would have paid $60,000 or more to utilize their knowledge and experience to help me get up the mountain. They're not carrying me, but they are helping to pave the way. So if I'm sent home now without ever setting foot on it, I'm beyond pissed at the companies, the government and the sherpas. If I come back the next year, do you think I'm going to be nicer to the sherpas who fucked me over the year before?

[Subby]

Of course I would be upset. I also think the sherpas are doing what's right. I would have a hard time reconciling the two, but hopefully I could.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Subby

Of course I would be upset. I also think the sherpas are doing what's right. I would have a hard time reconciling the two, but hopefully I could.

They're asking for the right things. They may not be doing it the right way or at the right time.

[ISiddiqui]

Well the only way people usually can get a change is when they walk off at the "wrong time".

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

They're asking for the right things. They may not be doing it the right way or at the right time.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well the only way people usually can get a change is when they walk off at the "wrong time".

What ISiddiqui said x1000.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

So defining "who" belongs on the mountain is pretty useless.

I would say if you require other people to do very dangerous and unwise acts, like fixing ropes in avalanche season, you should not climb.

You are right about Denali being more dangerous. So imagine if the local indigenous people were used and treated in the same manner, just to make it easier for the climbers? Total outcry and possible criminal charges.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I would say if you require other people to do very dangerous and unwise acts, like fixing ropes in avalanche season, you should not climb.

You are right about Denali being more dangerous. So imagine if the local indigenous people were used and treated in the same manner, just to make it easier for the climbers? Total outcry and possible criminal charges.

So no sherpas on the mountain is your solution? That will be good for them.

So the mountain will become available for only self-sufficient climbers (not even Hillary qualifies) or the playground for the truly rich who can afford to hire western porters to fix ropes. But then again, how is the latter different then hiring sherpas? Or should the rule be that no help of any kind is available? "Sorry you're dying mate, I can't give you my extra bottle of supplemental oxygen - it's against the rules!" As I said before, you don't seem to have a problem with other people taking high-risk jobs to get more income than would generally be available. Why are sherpas special and not fishermen or skydiving instructors or pearl divers?

Seriously, do you have a solution beyond trying to beat the drum of (false) exploitation? Or are you ready to whip out your wallet and write a big check to the Save a Sherpa foundation?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

So no sherpas on the mountain is your solution? That will be good for them.

Seriously, do you have a solution beyond trying to beat the drum of (false) exploitation? Or are you ready to whip out your wallet and write a big check to the Save a Sherpa foundation?

Sorry that I upset you so much, not my intention. I think there is a difference between Sherpa as a guide/partnership and one as a crutch. I believe their labor is exploited, you don't that's fine. Your dangerous jobs comparison would only make sense if the standard of living for the families of the risk takers were among the most profoundly poor citizens in this country.

I believe the death of the 13 Sherpa absolutely deserves a reexamination of the their use and treatment. Especially since it was only them up there doing the "dirty" work.

You seem to think that they are replaceable parts and the climbers money somehow gives them the right to demand less grieving more risk taking. I don't.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Sorry that I upset you so much, not my intention. I think there is a difference between Sherpa as a guide/partnership and one as a crutch. I believe their labor is exploited, you don't that's fine. Your dangerous jobs comparison would only make sense if the standard of living for the families of the risk takers were among the most profoundly poor citizens in this country.

I'm not upset, I don't understand your points.

For instance, there's little other opportunity for these sherpa beyond climbing. Whether or not people are at Everest will not change that in their lifetimes or yours. You seem to think one of the best opportunities they have to improve their standard of living is somehow exploitation.

And if you paid them $60,000 each, it wouldn't change a thing. In fact, if you did pay them that much, you know what would happen? That sherpa would hire another one for $6,000 and pocket the rest. So what's your point?

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I believe the death of the 13 Sherpa absolutely deserves a reexamination of the their use and treatment. Especially since it was only them up there doing the "dirty" work.

You seem to think that they are replaceable parts and the climbers money somehow gives them the right to demand less grieving more risk taking. I don't.

Climbing is inherently dangerous. Nothing changes that.

The sherpa wanted to be there. They competed with each other to be there because that was their best opportunity. Their participation was voluntary. So if 13 westerners died fixing their own ropes because they wanted to voluntarily climb Everest, is that somehow different? If a multimillionaire hired 13 western guides to voluntarily fix ropes so he could climb Everest, is that somehow any different?

It seems that repeatedly the direction you're taking this is "no one should be hired for this dangerous work", which isn't a premise I agree with. If you're saying something else, then I don't know what it is.

Edit - if the Nepalese government all of a sudden decides to offer $100,000 insurance policies to all sherpa, does that change any point you've made on this thread? It's still dangerous, people are still going to die and whomever is fixing ropes and hauling up gear is going to be at the greatest risk

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Sorry that I upset you so much, not my intention. I think there is a difference between Sherpa as a guide/partnership and one as a crutch. I believe their labor is exploited, you don't that's fine. Your dangerous jobs comparison would only make sense if the standard of living for the families of the risk takers were among the most profoundly poor citizens in this country.

I believe the death of the 13 Sherpa absolutely deserves a reexamination of the their use and treatment. Especially since it was only them up there doing the "dirty" work.

You seem to think that they are replaceable parts and the climbers money somehow gives them the right to demand less grieving more risk taking. I don't.

In Belize, you hired a local guide to take you and your wife into the jungles (and to the cool tarantula nest), did you not? I realize the level of risk is not the same but you were paying someone else to do something you were unwilling or unable to do yourself. We even do that here when I hire an electrician to fix something - better him to get electrocuted than me, you know?

But I think your beef is the image of wealthy English imperialists trekking through an African jungle trailed by a line of indigenous natives carrying their loads on their heads. After all, it's the natives that would get eaten not the ones with the guns. The three British expeditions in the 1920s (Mallory's) did the same thing, only they came all the way from India and around the range. In the 1870s, the railroads hired out Chinese and Irish laborers to do the dirty work of building across the continent. And today, we hire hordes of techies from India to do a lot of IT grunt work. Plus I don't need to mention the incredible number of migrant workers picking your fruits and vegetables in California. It's all exploitative because man's history demands that those that are able to succeed be given the opportunity and freedom to progress, even at the expense of others.

Now have the Sherpa communities progressed with the influx of Western and Asian monies and resources? I would say so because they are probably the most celebrated and well-funded indigenous peoples in the world. Without it, they would end up being like the Bhutans.

Now you and I have discussed who belongs on the mountain and who doesn't. Who gets to decide? The Sherpas (it's their land)? Reinhold Messner (who believes no one should use rope or oxygen)? The Nepalese government (who are exploiting the mountaineering community with their fees)? The Chinese government (who closed the Tibetan borders for a long time - Mallory's expeditions were in the country illegally)?

Should the 13 have gone out when they were high avalanche warnings? Probably not and I think things may be different in the future. But I wouldn't go so far as to deny them the chance to work for a living and to provide for their families and communities, even if it's blood money.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But I wouldn't go so far as to deny them the chance to work for a living and to provide for their families and communities, even if it's blood money.

I would. Somewhere I imagine you have a line of what is exploitative labor and what isn't. To me, this type of "blood money" crossed the line. I guess that just makes me morally superior to you and Blackader.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I would. Somewhere I imagine you have a line of what is exploitative labor and what isn't. To me, this type of "blood money" crossed the line. I guess that just makes me morally superior to you and Blackader.

I think letting them choose their future is superior than treating them like children and taking choices away from them. But I guess you know what's best for them, even if it means even more abject poverty and no future, right?

[Qwikshot]

Just my own points in this...

I was fascinated with mountain climbing tragedy having read "Into Thin Air", I also watched a few documentaries on the "sport". Flying over to China, I read "Savage Summit" on 5 women who at different times had climbed K2 but died. K2 is an especially nasty summit.

I'm contemplating reading "Buried in the Sky" which is about a K2 2008 tragedy in which Sherpas and climbers alike were killed.

It's easy to second guess. I think after being in China, I can understand how locals who are acclimated to the region can handle climbing up and down these deadly peaks because it does provide income and security for their families even if it means death. This is no different than coal miners, deep sea divers, or even crab fishermen in the Bering Sea, it's a job that provides for those who have technical skills and for the demand.

Lately, it's been easy for thrill seekers to plunk down money and some "with LITTLE OR CLIMBING SKILLS" to go up the tallest mountain in the world. It's also pressure with small windows and a large rush of people for elevated risk. Compound it with global warming, yes, I did say that, because it is noted that the ice shelf on K2 is deteriorating leading to greater risk of avalanche-in K2's case, and ice avalanche that will literally grind you down to nothing.

Ultimately, what once was a sport for the most skilled or most "privileged" has become more available to amateurs who bypass learning at smaller peaks for the opportunity to climb the best and the growing business that is climbing those peaks ("Into Thin Air" acknowledges these climbing companies that try to get their clients up and down and the pressure to do so in spite of warning signs). I think the locals that do this work are creating awareness. Remember this isn't a jaunt up a hill, Everest is roughly the same height as the cruising altitude of a 747, people who die on that mountain stay on that mountain.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

While no one disputes the work is risky and they should make decent money for the work, what bothers me is that from what I've heard, they've already been paid. So they knew what the job was, agreed to do it, showed up, took the money and left. I'm sure not all of them did this, but this seems to have not been reported by mainstream media so they look more sympathetic.

These guys aren't forced labor. They make 10x the average Nepalese salary in a year. They take the job precisely for the same reasons that guys are found on fishing boats in Alaska in December - the money is far better than anything else given their skill set. And once they reach the top of Everest, they can command substantial amounts of money to help other climbers get to the top.

I assume that if they paid back the money (or at least a pro-rated amount, based on the work they did do), you'd be OK with it then, right?

Because there are plenty of high-risk jobs where the experts show up, realize the risk factor has increased dramatically, and refused (rightly) to do the job.

Of course, in most of those cases they were going to get paid on completion, but the concept is similar.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I think letting them choose their future is superior than treating them like children and taking choices away from them. But I guess you know what's best for them, even if it means even more abject poverty and no future, right?

It's getting a bit frustrating how long it's taking you to see that I'm right and you are wrong...

There is a difference between being a guide and working with the climbers and having 16 Sherpa fix ropes in avalanche season to make it easier and more economical for paying clients. Again, using the Sherpa is not wrong, however using them this way, I believe was wrong.

Your premise that there are only two choices do whatever is asked of you or be poor is silly. Somehow me saying they should have more choice and protection in what is expected from them is treating them like children?

Again, if the Ahtna tribe lost 16 members fixing ropes on Denali during avalanche season for climber ease, knowing that they too are profoundly poor and could use the money, would there be criminal and civil charges? You bet.

Maybe the adult approach would be to help the community in such a way that engaging in profoundly risky and sacrilegious behavior is not their only choice. I feel that you prefer they stay desperately poor enough so that they can continue being exploited. I say this because I bet your argument would still be relevant in a 100 years: let them fix ropes or they will be poor. Can you see how that can come off as exploitative?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

It's getting a bit frustrating how long it's taking you to see that I'm right and you are wrong...

There is a difference between being a guide and working with the climbers and having 16 Sherpa fix ropes in avalanche season to make it easier and more economical for paying clients. Again, using the Sherpa is not wrong, however using them this way, I believe was wrong.

It's not avalanche season. It's climbing season. Avalanche season comes once the monsoon winds hit in June. But regardless, there's always a threat of avalanches on an 8,000m peak. Annapurna is known for horrendous avalanches, but people still climb it and guide it....because it's there.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Your premise that there are only two choices do whatever is asked of you or be poor is silly. Somehow me saying they should have more choice and protection in what is expected from them is treating them like children?

And you saying that they should have more choice doesn't mean that they will. Walmart isn't building a distribution center in Khumbu anytime soon.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Again, if the Ahtna tribe lost 16 members fixing ropes on Denali during avalanche season for climber ease, knowing that they too are profoundly poor and could use the money, would there be criminal and civil charges? You bet.

Different countries, different legal systems. As such, your comparison doesn't hold water.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Maybe the adult approach would be to help the community in such a way that engaging in profoundly risky and sacrilegious behavior is not their only choice. I feel that you prefer they stay desperately poor enough so that they can continue being exploited. I say this because I bet your argument would still be relevant in a 100 years: let them fix ropes or they will be poor. Can you see how that can come off as exploitative?

It's not their only choice, but it's often their best choice it they want to make money without leaving their land. This is a mountainous, sparse, tough area to live in with few resources and even fewer ways of profitably extracting those resources or building a transportation system to get to those resources. It's a landlocked, poor country and this region is even poorer land in the country. Maybe some time in the future it may change (maybe they'll find unobtanium there!), but right now there's no magical money wand to wave to make these poor people suddenly live by western civilization standards.

Frankly, you're an asshole for thinking that I somehow want these people to stay poor. But I am a realist and wishing they weren't poor isn't going to help. The situation is that if you want to live high on the hog by Nepalese standards and you have this skill set, being a sherpa is often the best career choice you can make. It's risky but then again they chose to do this. For every sherpa who was chosen to go on Everest, there's 10 or 100 others who wish they would have been. That's the reality.

Also, when someone can make 10x the yearly local salary for 3 months worth of work, I wouldn't call that exploitative. This isn't sweat-shop labor at 20% more than the local prevailing wage. This is good money but the work is high risk. They know it and take it. The western guides take similar risks to earn big money, but I don't hear you lamenting the death of Rob Hall or Anatoli Boukreev, who died guiding clients. I don't hear you saying they were somehow "exploited". People make choices, yet somehow you feel the need to deny them theirs. Your paternalism in this case is not only misguided, it's insulting.

[molson]

If I was a Sherpa with those skills, ethical or not, I'd weasel as much money out of those white people as possible.

I'd also be pretty pissed off if some foreign do-gooder who doesn't know my life for or my ability to assess risk somehow banned me from pursuing this trade.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Frankly, you're an asshole for thinking that I somehow want these people to stay poor. But I am a realist and wishing they weren't poor isn't going to help. The situation is that if you want to live high on the hog by Nepalese standards and you have this skill set, being a sherpa is often the best career choice you can make. It's risky but then again they chose to do this. For every sherpa who was chosen to go on Everest, there's 10 or 100 others who wish they would have been. That's the reality.

Also, when someone can make 10x the yearly local salary for 3 months worth of work, I wouldn't call that exploitative. This isn't sweat-shop labor at 20% more than the local prevailing wage. This is good money but the work is high risk. They know it and take it. The western guides take similar risks to earn big money, but I don't hear you lamenting the death of Rob Hall or Anatoli Boukreev, who died guiding clients. I don't hear you saying they were somehow "exploited". People make choices, yet somehow you feel the need to deny them theirs. Your paternalism in this case is not only misguided, it's insulting.

Since you seem a bit pissy, I'll just repeat myself and be done. I, therefore, declare myself King of this Tread-Mountain:

"Again, using the Sherpa is not wrong, however using them this way, I believe was wrong."

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Since you seem a bit pissy, I'll just repeat myself and be done. I, therefore, declare myself King of this Tread-Mountain:

"Again, using the Sherpa is not wrong, however using them this way, I believe was wrong."

More Paternalism with no solutions. Big surprise.

[Buccaneer]

The solution, I believe, will not be to have an all-or-nothing edict but to learn from the tragedy and implement some common sense rules. For example, there are many avalanche experts (lots in colorado) that can assess the dangers and warn of potential threats. Sometimes it means having to wait a day or a week until the substrate layers soften to ensure better bindings. You can't and shouldn't ban anyone from the ice fall for ropes and ladders are needed. Just be smarter about who to send and when.

In the first Mallory expedition (1922), there was an avalanche that killed 7 porters in the North Col. Mallory was partially buried. That ended their summit attempt but should it have ended all attempts on the north route?

[Blackadar]

Beyond the Paternalistic rantings of AE's posts, something else pisses me off about the general attitude of those like him - the lack of acknowledgement that these guys are elite athletes who are pretty well compensated to do something that many of them love. Being an Everest sherpa is pretty damn close to being a superstar in Nepal. Guys like Pemba Dorjie (sp? - held the speed record for climbing Everest from base camp - something like 10 hours!) and Apa Sherpa (most ascents of Everest) are seriously famous and relatively wealthy. Mountaineering is a high-risk profession, but these guys are absolutely elite athletes. The best are very well compensated and treated as national heroes.

Another thing that bothers me is that if 15 western climbers died because the rope broke, there would be a whole bunch of "rich, entitled dumbasses die on Everest, dur dur dur" comments. But because it's 13 sherpa, it's "OMG the poor exploited people died for the rich, entitled dumbasses". Seems a bit incongruent to me.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Beyond the Paternalistic rantings of AE's posts, something else pisses me off about the general attitude of those like him - the lack of acknowledgement that these guys are elite athletes who are pretty well compensated to do something that many of them love. Being an Everest sherpa is pretty damn close to being a superstar in Nepal. Guys like Pemba Dorjie (sp? - held the speed record for climbing Everest from base camp - something like 10 hours!) and Apa Sherpa (most ascents of Everest) are seriously famous and relatively wealthy. Mountaineering is a high-risk profession, but these guys are absolutely elite athletes. The best are very well compensated and treated as national heroes.

Another thing that bothers me is that if 15 western climbers died because the rope broke, there would be a whole bunch of "rich, entitled dumbasses die on Everest, dur dur dur" comments. But because it's 13 sherpa, it's "OMG the poor exploited people died for the rich, entitled dumbasses". Seems a bit incongruent to me.

Whoa, too much there bucko. Somehow this discussion has turned into something personal and gross, I'm sorry if I came off as judgmental towards your feelings on this issue, i was actually trying to lighten air. i tried to preface my comments with "I feel" to say I don't expect everyone to agree with me. There is nuance to our opinions, but I think neither of us is willing to explore it. I thought we could share our options, but this has just gotten nasty.

Perhaps we can go onto something less controversial, like, I believe Tropico 4 is better than Civ IV

[Buccaneer]

And Civ5 trumps all.

[Blackadar]

I'm gonna slap both of you.

[CU Tiger]

Wait, I am confused. Are the sherpas pushing the guy off the mountian in the bat suit, or is a sherpa jumping off the mountain?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Wait, I am confused. Are the sherpas pushing the guy off the mountian in the bat suit, or is a sherpa jumping off the mountain?

They're currently taking a poll to see which one will draw more viewers before deciding.