It was really interesting that there is a HUGE line of people coming up and down the mountain. It's hard to believe that so many people have the resources.
The other thing is the reliance on the Sherpa moving all that stuff up and down the mountain. (Capital S is the people) Being a sherpa is a super hard and dangerous job for some thrill seekers.
That's not a whim purchase for most people, and probably out of reach of e.g. the lower 50% of US incomes, but for a huge number of people it's an achievable amount if climbing Everest is your lifetime dream.
This is more like “rich westerners chasing FOMO feels”.
I have a hard time supporting politically that we owe deference to a minority experiencing shallow novelty and calling them life dreams, given the externalized costs foisted on society as a whole.
There are peaks closer and the difference in sensory experience is marginal.
This is just “more money than I can spend so I’ll shovel it a little at everything.” Which is politically indefensible given how society is manipulated to enable it.
It's more that Everest is the highest peak in the world. If there was another mountain 10m higher than Everest, Everest would get 5-10% of the traffic it currently does.
How many people know the second highest mountain in the world? It's K2, most people have at least heard of it. How about the third highest? Kangchenjunga. Never heard of it, had to Google it.
So for people who want a recognizable achievement, Everest is pretty much the top. Not just in climbing, but any physical achievement. Unless Nepal restricts the number of climbers, it will only get worse.
K2 and Kangchenjunga are also much harder to get to than Everest. For example, the Indian government does not permit access to Kangchenjunga, and the northern routes from Nepal are in (relatively, for Nepal) remote areas.
K2 is so remote that there was no local name for it (hence, the designation K2).
The article says so many people are doing it, the techniques are so well known, there’s little new info to glean in the activity itself, so it’s basically Xbox achievements for people with excess money as far as my subjective take on its value.
Our economy is so ridiculously hung up on gamifying FOMO and statistics to satisfy yet another gameified endeavor in financial economics.
And we rip tons of resources out of the ground each year to support our generation diddling their novelty button.
All I mean is I’m pretty done supporting the marketing BS of a bunch of aristocrats.
I say "lifetime dream" because, within that context, $50,000 is probably a good, achievable budget for the lifetime dream of probably north of a billion people in the world. Maybe two billion; I haven't looked at world demographics lately.
$50,000 is enough to do any one of starting a small business, or owning a classic car, or getting a masters degree in a subject you enjoy, or to own a boat or a tiny prop plane, or take a year or two off to try to write the next great novel, or buy a small plot of land in the wilderness to put a cabin on, or take a pretty fantastic round-the-world trip, or serve as a down payment on a small house in much of the US, maybe a fixer-upper depending on your location, or to throw a really amazing wedding. Or to climb Mount Everest.
Any one; if you aren't a rich asshole, you only get to pick one (or if you're a rich SWE, like 4-5). But, like, a lot of people can scrimp and save and take out a second mortgage and do one.
I understand why you think wanting to climb Mount Everest is a stupid dream, and I'm sure that a hearty number of the climbers are rich assholes who don't bat an eye at dropping $50k on something they don't really care about. And heck, most of the people who do dream of climbing Everest aren't in the physical shape to actually go and do it.
But still, it's a pretty common dream of a lifetime, of the right scale that a huge number of people are able to attempt it.
EDIT: As noted below, I should have read the article first; I made a grand assumption about the article, and had I read it (which I intend to do - but I read enough of it to see what it's really about - and that should be interesting), my questions would have been answered, and this dumb comment of mine wouldn't be here.
My apologies, everyone. I'll do better in the future...
--- Original Comment Below ---
I'm not a mountain climber, so maybe I just don't "get it" - but I can see why someone might want to do this once, or maybe even twice - in a lifetime.
But why 21 times?
What possesses someone to spend those kinds of resources, both monetarily and physically, to do this kind of thing? What are they attempting to prove to themselves?
Furthermore, does this amount of climbing activity on the part of one individual have any bearing on the context of the mountain not being what it used to be?
Then: "<Insert activity> is really dangerous. Very few people have done it. It requires a lot of capital, and your health and life may be in danger"
Adventurers, explorers, inventors: "The risk is worth the reward. We must push the boundaries of human reach and understanding further"
Now: "<Same activity> is really dangerous. Very few people have done it. It requires a lot of capital, and your health and life may be in danger. But not because the activity itself is dangerous or novel anymore - that's been solved and perfected decades ago. No, because the only people that still do this activity are doing it for ego not for humanity, are overfunded, but underprepared, and the sheer volume of them doing the activity at the same time creates an environment more dangerous than it naturally needs to be."
Rich conceited assholes: "The risk is worth the reward. I'm going to get to drop in 'You know, this reminds me of the time I climbed Mount Everest' into every soiree, pitch meeting, and networking event I'll be at for the rest of my life."
What's the difference between "rich conceited asshole doing it for ego" and "adventurer doing it for humanity"? At the end of the day there's no practical benefit, only that person's experience.
The adventurer is supposed to be doing something worth accomplishing ie a first or an important feat. Doing it for the 100th time makes you the rich asshole even if the #1 guy was a rich asshole too at least he was proving something.
Yes, there is a guy where I'm currently working that "been there done that, have tee shirts, pictures, etc." and won't hesitate to insert it into a conversation. me: A little winded from all the stairs" him:"Wow, you think you are tired, let me tell you...." me:"The snow is really blowing out there" him:"If you want to see blowing snow there I was on ...."
Yes he is, just not in every conversation. It's a great story and an accomplishment, but to drag it into everything becomes tiresome. We were all excited at the beginning but now, to be honest, I don't do any non-business discussions with him.
Are they harming you buy talking about this frequently? If not, then who cares? It's their personal quirk. Play along. Let them own this one thing that they have to talk about. Maybe they're insecure and not good with social interaction, but they feel like they have to talk about something.
If you're honestly annoyed by it, then complaining on some random internet forum about it isn't going to fix the situation. Confront the person and tell them directly that they need to find new experiences to talk about or that it's getting on your colleague's nerves.
Hi, I was responding to DeanCommie's post "Rich conceited assholes: "The risk is worth the reward. I'm going to get to drop in 'You know, this reminds me of the time I climbed Mount Everest' into every soiree, pitch meeting, and networking event I'll be at for the rest of my life.""
I was agreeing with him, and posted my instant case backing up his opinion in a random internet forum.
Most of the co-workers also treat Mr. Everest the way that I do. Thanks for the tip, but I'm good with how to manage the social interactions with my co-workers.
It's still a huge and I mean huge physical achievement to have summited Mt. Everest. Sure, 1000s of people do it every year but it doesn't make it easier for you. Its the same when people decide to do anything that's been done before (open restaurants, have relationships, run marathons, etc.)
If you wanted to spin this constructively you could talk about how we could move more sherpa responsibility on to the climber or in a self-sustainable system. Nothing wrong with that but please don't generalize all Mt. Everest climbers to be rich assholes. For most people, it would be among the hardest thing that they did in their life. Also, generalizing everyone as evil is a fast way to lose audience with people with whom you want to bring about a change.
I really feel sad for these sherpas that have to work as care givers for these unprepared losers from the west (most of them seem to be) that just want to impress their kin back home.
I suggest the book "Into Thin Air" (and the movie version "Everest") if you want to know more about how the commercial side of Everest climbing works (and about a really sad tragedy).
They are losers because they try to emulate things that someone did before them at the risk of their life and enduring unimaginable hardships in that case, but using every modern means possible to make the climb a few orders of magnitude easier (sherpas or guides placing oxygen canisters all around for them or literally dragging people up the mountain when they can't stand it anymore but hey they paid for it) just to brag about it.
Personally I don't care about doing it this way and I'm pretty sure I couldn't do it how real mountaineers do. I'm not bitter, I just think that what they are doing is a farce.
Kudos to those that attempt the ascent after years of real training and knowing what they do.
I agree with you sentiment in general about not chastising people for enjoying things you don't enjoy, but in this case it's different.
If you enjoy rock climbing or mountain hiking you go to one of thousands of other mountains. There are plenty of places that are more challenging if that is what you crave.
Literally the only reasons to climb Everest in the modern day is because you want the egocentric talking point of having climbed the highest mountain. That or you like queuing at high altitude.
> I really feel sad for these sherpa that have to work as care givers for these unprepared losers from the west (most of them seem to be) that just want to impress their kin back home.
Do you climb mountains? It's hard to explain the motivation if you don't do it yourself. Most people I know who have done big climbs are not trying to impress their kin. George Mallory answered the question why with "Because it's there." That's still about the best answer.
That's not the kind of people I'm referring to, I was talking about unqualified "climbers"[1], like those cited by John Oliver or some of those of the Rob Hall expedition.
Unqualified or unlucky? It's hard to say from the article you cited; bad weather and crowding also seem to have been factors. 8000m peaks have high rates of fatalities under the best of conditions. But this is true of any large mountain range.
Take the Alps for example. On one day in the summer of 1979 12 people died on climbs around Chamonix, which is a single valley. It was a beautiful day with ideal climbing conditions around much of Mt. Blanc. I remember it well, because I was in the valley watching helicopters bringing down bodies all afternoon.
Most of the deaths were on the Tour Ronde. [1] The uppermost of 3 climbing parties fell on a steep couloir and took out two parties below them. Perhaps the first party was unqualified but the second and third parties?
There’s climbing mountains, and then there’s paying $50,000 to line up to climb past a bunch of bodies that were never recovered, presumably because people pay $50,000 to summit Everest, not to retrieve dead bodies.
What kind of brain injury do you have to have to want to pay $50,000 to stand in line for that?
Everest is not mountain climbing anymore, hasn’t been for years. It’s a dangerous guided hike for a very expensive selfie. If you want a real challenge go to K2 or basically anywhere else. I have more respect for people that climb their local peak than those who summit Everest.
People should be forced to carry their own waste down at least! I'm also shocked how many people claim they "climbed Mt. Everest" when their Sherpa guide did 99% of the heavy lifting.
I did not know that Sherpa is an ethnicity. That it is, logically means that it's weird to use that word in English to refer to the person who guides climbers on the mountain.
"My Sherpa set up the tent" is a weird thing to say. Like "the Japanese made us some sushi" or "my Finn started the sauna".
The problem here isn't Everest, it's poverty. Nepal is a very poor country. As much as everyone likes to hate on the rich people climbing mountains, they miss the fact that without the mountain, the people would be even worse off.
Yes, of course when a western luxury income collides with third world poverty, of course there is ugliness. It's just here that it's visible.
And it's easy to make fun of the ego-driven climbers, despite the fact that it's no less meaningful a pursuit as pretty much any other hobby.
47 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadThe other thing is the reliance on the Sherpa moving all that stuff up and down the mountain. (Capital S is the people) Being a sherpa is a super hard and dangerous job for some thrill seekers.
That's not a whim purchase for most people, and probably out of reach of e.g. the lower 50% of US incomes, but for a huge number of people it's an achievable amount if climbing Everest is your lifetime dream.
I have a hard time supporting politically that we owe deference to a minority experiencing shallow novelty and calling them life dreams, given the externalized costs foisted on society as a whole.
There are peaks closer and the difference in sensory experience is marginal.
This is just “more money than I can spend so I’ll shovel it a little at everything.” Which is politically indefensible given how society is manipulated to enable it.
How many people know the second highest mountain in the world? It's K2, most people have at least heard of it. How about the third highest? Kangchenjunga. Never heard of it, had to Google it.
So for people who want a recognizable achievement, Everest is pretty much the top. Not just in climbing, but any physical achievement. Unless Nepal restricts the number of climbers, it will only get worse.
K2 is so remote that there was no local name for it (hence, the designation K2).
The article says so many people are doing it, the techniques are so well known, there’s little new info to glean in the activity itself, so it’s basically Xbox achievements for people with excess money as far as my subjective take on its value.
Our economy is so ridiculously hung up on gamifying FOMO and statistics to satisfy yet another gameified endeavor in financial economics.
And we rip tons of resources out of the ground each year to support our generation diddling their novelty button.
All I mean is I’m pretty done supporting the marketing BS of a bunch of aristocrats.
$50,000 is enough to do any one of starting a small business, or owning a classic car, or getting a masters degree in a subject you enjoy, or to own a boat or a tiny prop plane, or take a year or two off to try to write the next great novel, or buy a small plot of land in the wilderness to put a cabin on, or take a pretty fantastic round-the-world trip, or serve as a down payment on a small house in much of the US, maybe a fixer-upper depending on your location, or to throw a really amazing wedding. Or to climb Mount Everest.
Any one; if you aren't a rich asshole, you only get to pick one (or if you're a rich SWE, like 4-5). But, like, a lot of people can scrimp and save and take out a second mortgage and do one.
I understand why you think wanting to climb Mount Everest is a stupid dream, and I'm sure that a hearty number of the climbers are rich assholes who don't bat an eye at dropping $50k on something they don't really care about. And heck, most of the people who do dream of climbing Everest aren't in the physical shape to actually go and do it.
But still, it's a pretty common dream of a lifetime, of the right scale that a huge number of people are able to attempt it.
My apologies, everyone. I'll do better in the future...
--- Original Comment Below ---
I'm not a mountain climber, so maybe I just don't "get it" - but I can see why someone might want to do this once, or maybe even twice - in a lifetime.
But why 21 times?
What possesses someone to spend those kinds of resources, both monetarily and physically, to do this kind of thing? What are they attempting to prove to themselves?
Furthermore, does this amount of climbing activity on the part of one individual have any bearing on the context of the mountain not being what it used to be?
* Step 2: Comment on the article.
You got it backwards.
Adventurers, explorers, inventors: "The risk is worth the reward. We must push the boundaries of human reach and understanding further"
Now: "<Same activity> is really dangerous. Very few people have done it. It requires a lot of capital, and your health and life may be in danger. But not because the activity itself is dangerous or novel anymore - that's been solved and perfected decades ago. No, because the only people that still do this activity are doing it for ego not for humanity, are overfunded, but underprepared, and the sheer volume of them doing the activity at the same time creates an environment more dangerous than it naturally needs to be."
Rich conceited assholes: "The risk is worth the reward. I'm going to get to drop in 'You know, this reminds me of the time I climbed Mount Everest' into every soiree, pitch meeting, and networking event I'll be at for the rest of my life."
Being the 4000th person to summit Everest.
These things are not equivalent.
If you're honestly annoyed by it, then complaining on some random internet forum about it isn't going to fix the situation. Confront the person and tell them directly that they need to find new experiences to talk about or that it's getting on your colleague's nerves.
Stop being a coward around your coworkers.
I was agreeing with him, and posted my instant case backing up his opinion in a random internet forum.
Most of the co-workers also treat Mr. Everest the way that I do. Thanks for the tip, but I'm good with how to manage the social interactions with my co-workers.
If you wanted to spin this constructively you could talk about how we could move more sherpa responsibility on to the climber or in a self-sustainable system. Nothing wrong with that but please don't generalize all Mt. Everest climbers to be rich assholes. For most people, it would be among the hardest thing that they did in their life. Also, generalizing everyone as evil is a fast way to lose audience with people with whom you want to bring about a change.
I suggest the book "Into Thin Air" (and the movie version "Everest") if you want to know more about how the commercial side of Everest climbing works (and about a really sad tragedy).
Personally I don't care about doing it this way and I'm pretty sure I couldn't do it how real mountaineers do. I'm not bitter, I just think that what they are doing is a farce.
Kudos to those that attempt the ascent after years of real training and knowing what they do.
If you enjoy rock climbing or mountain hiking you go to one of thousands of other mountains. There are plenty of places that are more challenging if that is what you crave.
Literally the only reasons to climb Everest in the modern day is because you want the egocentric talking point of having climbed the highest mountain. That or you like queuing at high altitude.
Do you climb mountains? It's hard to explain the motivation if you don't do it yourself. Most people I know who have done big climbs are not trying to impress their kin. George Mallory answered the question why with "Because it's there." That's still about the best answer.
[1]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2147998/Mount-Evere...
Take the Alps for example. On one day in the summer of 1979 12 people died on climbs around Chamonix, which is a single valley. It was a beautiful day with ideal climbing conditions around much of Mt. Blanc. I remember it well, because I was in the valley watching helicopters bringing down bodies all afternoon.
Most of the deaths were on the Tour Ronde. [1] The uppermost of 3 climbing parties fell on a steep couloir and took out two parties below them. Perhaps the first party was unqualified but the second and third parties?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_Ronde#Events_and_incident...
What kind of brain injury do you have to have to want to pay $50,000 to stand in line for that?
A. Climate change. Most of the problem with the mountain is not tourism per se, but global warming.
B. How the locals need better and more varied economic opportunities, education, etc.
The author is founder of The Apa Sherpa Foundation: https://www.apasherpafoundation.org/
"My Sherpa set up the tent" is a weird thing to say. Like "the Japanese made us some sushi" or "my Finn started the sauna".
Mostly because probably more than half of HN pulls six figures or more, and sprinkle in some bonuses and stock options to match.
Yeah, money, money, money... Oh, boo! Boo, I say! Boo all that money!
Yes, of course when a western luxury income collides with third world poverty, of course there is ugliness. It's just here that it's visible.
And it's easy to make fun of the ego-driven climbers, despite the fact that it's no less meaningful a pursuit as pretty much any other hobby.