Everest-Books??

Damage

Figured someone here may have read a book on Everest,any good true life stories or peoples everest adventures,any recommendations

cavedave

"Into thin air" by krakaeur is a good read about Everest. If you like that sort of thing "touching the void" by Simpson is good. Himilaya by Palin is an agreeable read and good information. Brisons "walk in the woods" is on the same lines.
For a caving "we had it tough" book
"Memoirs of a Speleologist: The Adventurous Life of a Famous French Cave Explorer" by Joly is great. Incluced the best guide to what kit to bring you will ever see.
"Ten Years Under the Earth" Norbert Casteret is a classic
"Life at the extremes" is a great popular science book about living in weird environments
"Teacup in a storm" is a good book on general explorer type stuff.
Chris Bonnighton has a book called "quest for adventure" that is good if you see it on sale. loads of modern stuff so you do not feel exploration ended in 1956.
The antartic books "shakelton" and such tend tend to be very good.

Damage

Thanks will have a look through those titles.

Evil Phil

Any of Joe Simpson's books are a good read. I've just finished The Flame of Adventure by Simon Yates its a great read.

Roen

I think Beck Weathers wrote a book about the same incident that John Krakaeur wrote about. I haven't read it but it's supposed to be good. 'Left for dead' or something.

Evil Phil

Anatoli Boukreev book The Climb is another account of the same disaster. Not as elegantly written as Krakaeur's book but Boukreev defends his actions against Krakaeur's accusations. It's worth a read.

redspider

I caught some snippets of the recent Discovery programmes about Everest. The programmes did not focus on the deaths that are in evidence at this spot, but surely it is evident that the top of this mountain is now littered with dead bodies and is open to trap others in the conquest of a lump of rock?

Some of the figures include:

As of the end of the 2004 climbing season, 2,238 people had reached the summit (1,148 of them since 1998) and 186 people died while summitting. The conditions on the mountain are so difficult that most of the corpses have been left where they fell; some of them are easily visible from the standard climbing routes.
Most expeditions use oxygen masks and tanks [18] above 26,246 feet (8,000 m); this region is known as the death zone. Everest can be climbed without supplementary oxygen but this increases the risk to the climber. Humans do not think clearly with low oxygen, and the combination of severe weather, low temperatures, and steep slopes often require quick, accurate decisions.

My opinion is that climbing above a certain height, ie: 8000m, should be made illegal as it is just too dangerous when it is 'unaided'. The mountain should be cleaned up if it can over the forthcoming decade when weather permits and could be done so by using technology, such as robots. Mankind is smart enough to use the technology it builds to go to locations where the human body cannot, such as long space journies, deep under sea, etc. And surely we should put our brains to good use and give these dead bodies the respect that they and their families deserve.

What do you people think?

Redspider

cavedave

good question and worthy of its own thread.

My opinion is that climbing above a certain height, ie: 8000m, should be made illegal as it is just too dangerous when it is 'unaided'.

I do not believe other people have the right to tell as sane human being they cannot kill themselves.

The mountain should be cleaned up if it can over the forthcoming decade when weather permits and could be done so by using technology, such as robots.

Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where the plan is to replace striking teachers with robots if they exist at the time.

Mankind is smart enough to use the technology it builds to go to locations where the human body cannot, such as long space journies, deep under sea, etc.

And Christopher Columbus could have stayed at home. Robots do have their place though, particularly in space at the moment.

Fundamentally if you stop people doing stupid dangerous pointless things like climbing everest, going into caves or ocean going yacht racing you also stop them doing stupid dangerous things like messing with pitchblend to discover Radioactivity, inventing rocketry, quiting their job to start a business like Apple, and pretty much every other human advance ever.

Humans are danger addicted curious monkeys who do these stupid things that make no logical sense. Once you start telling people that risk is unacceptable you end up with an infantile sterile moribound society.

Evil Phil

redspider wrote:

My opinion is that climbing above a certain height, ie: 8000m, should be made illegal as it is just too dangerous when it is 'unaided'.

Yeah we should ban driving cars too, look at how many people have dies on Irelands roads since 1998. A lot more than 186 :rolleyes:

The problem with Everest is if you have 60 grand in cash you can climb* the mountain, most high altitude mountaineers have spent years if not decades developing the skills required for these kind of endevours and are fully aware of the risks. Even the people who pay are aware of the risks but they make a decision for themselves which is nobody's business but their own. It's the sherpa's I feel sorry for.

Ban climbing, pffft.


*Climb as in be dragged up fixed lines by a couple of sherpas.

redspider

cavedave wrote:

I do not believe other people have the right to tell as sane human being they cannot kill themselves.
Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where the plan is to replace striking teachers with robots if they exist at the time.
And Christopher Columbus could have stayed at home. Robots do have their place though, particularly in space at the moment.

Fundamentally if you stop people doing stupid dangerous pointless things like climbing everest, going into caves or ocean going yacht racing you also stop them doing stupid dangerous things like messing with pitchblend to discover Radioactivity, inventing rocketry, quiting their job to start a business like Apple, and pretty much every other human advance ever.

Humans are danger addicted curious monkeys who do these stupid things that make no logical sense. Once you start telling people that risk is unacceptable you end up with an infantile sterile moribound society.

True, society cant stop people from killing themselves if that is their choice. However, as a society we do wish people to have their full mental faculties when making such decisions and it is arguable whether people who die on Everest actually do have that at that point in time. It is a dangerous place and these people do NOT die voluntarily. In a different scenario, should an intoxicated 'patient' be allowed to asphyxiate on their own vomit? As a society we try and prevent that.

I get your humour about the robots :-)

The point I guess is about technology. We probably have the technology to build a pressurised cable car all the way up there now, if the money for such a 'tourism' project was made available, etc. Of course, it would be a scar on the mountain, and many of the Sherpa's and Nepalese see it as a sacred mountain, but it would mean no more deaths, or at least less. But surely having 186 deaths on the mountain and a large proportion of those still on it frozen is equally an insult to the mountain and the people of the locality ?!?

Fundamentally if you stop people doing stupid dangerous pointless things you also stop them inventing every other human advance ever.

Not so, there are risks and then there are stupid risks. Scientists wear goggles, Nuclear scientists use lead, F1 drivers use seat-belts, helmets, etc, parachutists use parachutes (;-) ), etc. The people that climb Everest try to protect themselves as much as possible, but the environment can get so inhospitable for human survival that many, unwittingly fall into a trap and succumb to death, and many more to frost-bite damage.

Sometimes the human race needs to be protected from itself. Thats why we have seat-belts in cars, have speed limits etc, we have learned its a good idea. I think, and maybe many more do and its a growing body, that climbing at such heights is ludicrous for most people.

Lets take a different scenario. If Everest was 10,000m, it would probably be unclimbable. No doubt people would want to get up there, helicopter, balloon, etc. It would be possible. But that would be fr the adveturers, not for the amatuer mountain walkers that are going up Everest today and are allowed to do so bythe Nepalese for local economic reasons more than anything else.

Adventure and exploration is one thing, but for my liking there are too many deaths on Everest which are catching out some people. The number of deaths are not accidental, more probabilistic.

I am sure that if there was a mountain as high as Everest in the EU that there would be much stricter controls on its access, etc.

Redspider

redspider

Evil Phil wrote:

Yeah we should ban driving cars too, look at how many people have dies on Irelands roads since 1998. A lot more than 186 :rolleyes:

The problem with Everest is if you have 60 grand in cash you can climb* the mountain, most high altitude mountaineers have spent years if not decades developing the skills required for these kind of endevours and are fully aware of the risks. Even the people who pay are aware of the risks but they make a decision for themselves which is nobody's business but their own. It's the sherpa's I feel sorry for.

Ban climbing, pffft.

*Climb as in be dragged up fixed lines by a couple of sherpas.

Well, we do have limits on cars, not speed limiters which perhaps should be the case and that may come in some day, but speed limits which if not adhered to could see you fined or indeed go to jail. In this case, the owners of Everest (ie: Nepal) should put in a mandatory limit at 8,000m and make it an offence to go higher.

You are right that its the 60k-paying 'amateurs' which are most likely to become a victim. But also the individual climber who cant afford the 60k and is climbing on his/her own. I read situations of their O2 stores being robbed, etc. These are literally crimes on the mountain and which are causing deaths. Nepalese officialdom at the moment is to turn a 'blind eye' to these and other events and play down the dangers of Everest, due to the Tourism dollars that Everest, K2 and the Himalayan range brings into the country, but if Everest was in Ireland it would be closed off, I would hope.

> they make a decision for themselves which is nobody's business but their own.

Yes and no. The key thing is that many of them dont make the decision with a full brain of oxygen. Is it really a decision based on reason or are they delusional? Also, what about the stolen oxygen tank cases? Those guys didnt decide to have their oxygen stolen. And then there is the demon weather (ie: the jet stream which rips over the peak, stripping it of snow). Its track and movement is unpredictable.

> It's the sherpa's I feel sorry for.

Yes, I feel for them as well. As they have grown up there at high altitudes, their bodies can cope with less oxygen than sea-level westeners but they have to bring up everything, close to a slave system of carriers. Wouldnt we be better off as westeners/rich countries to start to trade with Nepal, help them with education, etc, no reason why in time they couldnt be an offshore centre and a booming economy like a mini-India? Yes, keep up the tourism and pay to see the mountains and climb them, BUT only up to 8,000m or whatever level that your body's oxygen capacity can take you to and which is safe. The level of deaths is proof positive that what is being attempted is hazardous and not safe.

I've been to 6,000m plus in the Andes and didnt suffer from 'soroche' or any altitude sickness, and maybe one day I will go up to Base Camp or even ABC on Everest when I head back over to Asia sometime. But no way would I be stupid enough to go up to the peak at 8800m. I'd rather spend my time/money sending up a remote controlled webcam which can show me the view instead of putting my own life in unnecessary danger.

Just some thoughts .....

Redspider

BostonB

AFAIK some people struggle even at Everest base camp which is about 5500m. I've been up to around 5000 on a day trip once and wasn't that great tbh. Maybe if I'd got there slower I might have been ok.

I watched the discovery programme and was equally fascinated and disturbed about it. There's definitely a reality show gloss put over it, and they really should have covered the reality of commercial guiding and the controversy surrounding events that happened. That said it still a huge task to get up that mountain guided or not. Even if its not a technical exercise. I'd never been aware about the popularity of Everest etc. So its opened my eyes to that, and too climbing in general.

So I've been doing some more reading on it, and climbing Everest specifically. Theres very experienced climbers getting caught out on Everest, ignoring their own rules as typified by "Into thin air" by krakaeur. Which I'm in the middle of reading. You don't get up Everest being rational, because the reality is your life is on the line once you attempt it. So applying everyday logic isn't going to work. That said its disturbing some of the stuff thats going on.

That said there are greater killers in Ireland that we do very little about. Road deaths, MRSA, Smoking, drinking etc. So I doubt that there would be much outcry if Everest was in Ireland like has been suggested.

Evil Phil

The people who climb Everest have made the decision long before they're in Nepal or Tibet. Not when they're suffering from altitude sickness high on the mountain. This debate comes up time and time again and I think you've completely missed the point of why people are doing this. Cable Car? The point is not to stand at the top but to climb the mountain. A couple of discovery channel episodes aren't going to give you an understanding of climbing in any shape or form. Why stop at 8,000m? Look at the history of the Eiger, that's less than half the height of Everest. Climbing is dangerous, as climbers we know that and minimise the risks but they're always there. A fall from above 10m is usually fatal, should that be called the death zone? It would make it really *sensational*. Then we could make everyone boulders and ban multipitch.

There is an awful lot of sensationalism about high altitude mountaineering and Everest in particular. Which is understandable as climbing is about as interesting as watching paint dry to non-climbers, hence the melodrama, but it is sensationalism. You can't say the word Everest without somebody blathering on about The Death Zone. BTW, not everybody climbs with oxygen and Sherpas. Google Reinhold Messner at some point.

redspider

> I've been up to around 5000 on a day trip once and wasn't that great tbh. Maybe if I'd got there slower I might have been ok.

Yes, you need to increase altitude levels slowly and acclimatize. Your body will react to the lower levels of oxygen and you will be able to absorb more oxygen into your blood. The more time you can spend acclimatizing at ech level the better. But at certain high altitudes, your body just cannot absorb what it needs. You cant make it do what it is not capable of. Each person is different. I dont know if mountain climbers have tried it but you can increase your oxygen carrying capacity by using the 'Lasse Viren' method (blood transfer) and no doubt there are others concerning diet, preparation, etc and even doping (EPO)!

> Theres very experienced climbers getting caught out on Everest, ignoring their own rules as typified by "Into thin air" by krakaeur.

Yes, that is the problem. Even people that have prepared extensively, mitigated against all the risks are still dying.

> That said there are greater killers in Ireland that we do very little about. Road deaths, MRSA, Smoking, drinking etc. So I doubt that there would be much outcry if Everest was in Ireland like has been suggested.

Well, we put up a stonbe border/fence at the edge of the cliffs of Moher, to prevent people from getting too close to the edge and falling over, we arrest people for not wearing seat-belts, helmets for motorbikes, etc, etc. Once authorities and most people see that something is a high risk and a very dangerous and lethal one, steps are normally taken to prevent people from becoming victims. I have no doubt that if Nepal wanted to stop people dying on Everest they would do so and close it.

Evil Phil wrote:

The people who climb Everest have made the decision long before they're in Nepal or Tibet. Not when they're suffering from altitude sickness high on the mountain.

Why stop at 8,000m? Look at the history of the Eiger, that's less than half the height of Everest. Climbing is dangerous, as climbers we know that and minimise the risks but they're always there. A fall from above 10m is usually fatal, should that be called the death zone?

BTW, not everybody climbs with oxygen and Sherpas. Google Reinhold Messner at some point.

I think you have to admit that low oxygen levels affect decision making. There is ample research on it. The decision to try and make an attempt on Everest at ground level is one thing. The decision to stop that attempt is a much harder one, and more usually than not is made at 8,000 m plus! Each step up a mountain is a decision to continue.

A distinction between mountain climbing, which as you say can be dangerous at any altitude, and high altitude climbing needs to be made. The Eiger is dangerous, indeed climbing up any mountain that is sheer is, whether in Kerry, Sligo, the Alps or the Himalayas or elsewhere. I myself am a mountain walker. Even that has dangers judging by the number of people that have got caught out on Ireland's mountains.

But the lack of oxygen at Everest levels is an added and unnecessary risk and in a way has nothing to do with mountain climbing! Everest is, I understand, just about 2500m from its base plateau. It is not a particularly tall mountain. Its just over twice Carountouhil. (McKinley I understand is the biggest mountain in the world).

But the challenge to mountaineers and people attempting Everest doesnt come from any sheer cliffs, or overhangs, etc, its the cachet of the highest mountain in the world. There is much less interest in K2, and further down the list. But its the inhospitality of the place which has nothing to do with mountain climbing which is catching people out. Is that moutain climbing? Its debateable.

Yes, I realise people have climbed Everest without oxygen. That doesnt mean that it is safe to do so - eg: people have jumped out of aeroplanes at 30,000 feet and survived, without a chute! Most people cant survive climbing up Everest without Oxygen. Looking at the bodies at the top confirms that.

> Reinhold Messner
Is that the guy who is 'accused' of sneaking up some oxygen pouches or something? I dont think there is any serious mountaineer that would recommend going up Everest without oxygen.

As for the Sherpa's, they can still be tour guides and tourist organisers. It is safe for most people to go to BC and even ABC with proper acclimatization and guide's nd being the tallest mountain in the world it will remain a sight to behold. But it doesnt mean we should allow people to climb up it.

That tower skyscraper in Kuala Lumpar may be the tallest building (if still) in the world, but it doesnt mean that people should attempt to climb it, just because it is 'there'.

No doubt the debate will continue across the world but I am secure in my opinion about it .......

safe climbing (and walking in my case),

Redspider

Evil Phil

redspider wrote:

Is that the guy who is 'accused' of sneaking up some oxygen pouches or something? I dont think there is any serious mountaineer that would recommend going up Everest without oxygen.

No, he's the first climber to summit all 14 8 thousanders and one of the most highly respected mountaineers. Any ascent without oxygen commands a lot more respect amoungst the 'serious' mountaineers. That fact that you think an oxygen tank (let alone some oxygen tanks) is something that can be snook up anywhere unseen or in a 'pouch' just illustrates how uniformed you actually are on the topic.

There is much less interest in K2, and further down the list.

Not amoungst climbers there's not. That's why K2 is refered to as the Climbers' Everest. There's a huge amount of interest in K2 and the other 12 peaks. In fact I would say there's even more interest considering the farce that Everest has become. Again you're uniformed.

I am secure in my opinion about it

An uniformed opinion. At the end of the day though it boils down to the fact that you simply do not have the right to decide if somebody should climb at those altitudes. It's none of your business. I respect anyone who can make it on those mountains, oxygen or not, and I see the loss of life as a tragedy but it doesn't mean we should stop people from going up there. I think it shows a huge amount of disrespect to those who have died to use them as an excuse to ban what they obviously loved.

BostonB

redspider wrote:

....

> Reinhold Messner
Is that the guy who is 'accused' of sneaking up some oxygen pouches or something? I dont think there is any serious mountaineer that would recommend going up Everest without oxygen.....

Messner did it without oxygen as part of two-man team with Peter Habeler in 1978. 1980, Messner did it solo. Again without supplementary oxygen and with no one else on the mountain. From what I've read almost 100 people have done it since. I lot of them "serious" mountaineers I'd assume.

redspider

Evil Phil wrote:

No, he's the first climber to summit all 14 8 thousanders and one of the most highly respected mountaineers. Any ascent without oxygen commands a lot more respect amoungst the 'serious' mountaineers. That fact that you think an oxygen tank (let alone some oxygen tanks) is something that can be snook up anywhere unseen or in a 'pouch' just illustrates how uniformed you actually are on the topic.

Not amoungst climbers there's not. That's why K2 is refered to as the Climbers' Everest. There's a huge amount of interest in K2 and the other 12 peaks. In fact I would say there's even more interest considering the farce that Everest has become. Again you're uniformed.

An uniformed opinion. At the end of the day though it boils down to the fact that you simply do not have the right to decide if somebody should climb at those altitudes. It's none of your business. I respect anyone who can make it on those mountains, oxygen or not, and I see the loss of life as a tragedy but it doesn't mean we should stop people from going up there. I think it shows a huge amount of disrespect to those who have died to use them as an excuse to ban what they obviously loved.

I think you are missing or ignoring the key point I am making, and that is that competing against oxygen depletion has nothing to do with the skills of climbing a mountain. They manifest as dual challenges at Everest and other mountain peaks due to their elevation, but wouldnt a climb of a peak in the exact same shape as Everest at sea-level be just the same mountain-climbing challenge? It is only 2500m, or not?

Reinhold Messner may not have been the person I heard about who was 'cheating'. Pouches containing oxygen (think of wine bags!) have been used as a way to conceal the use of oxygen. If someone is attempting to climb a mountain without oxygen, they pf course cant be seen to be carrying an oxygen tank. They use these pouches to cheat.

I am not claiming that Messner cheated, but to me, the achievement is not necessarily a skill per se nor one of mountain climbing. It is clear that Messner had the carrying capacity in his blood (red bood cells) to extract sufficient oxygen from the air around him for his body to function to some extent. Has that anything to do with mountain climbing, scaling, etc? I dont think so. Did he have luck with the weather or avoid bad luck with it? Probably. Is that a skill or just luck. No doubt his training helped, his life, where he was born, etc, and who knows, maybe it was a genetic 'defect' as we cant all be born with the same capacity to produce the exact same number of red blood cells. But he wasn't a typical climber.

Also, climbing without oxygen is prone to 'cheating'. For example, Lasse Viren was a well known athelete around the same time as Messner was doing his things. It is not incolceivable that others used similar or indeed other oxygen boosting techniques. And now in modern times there are all sorts of things people can use. EPO for example. Is that mountain climbing? Is that skill or expertise? I dont think so.

As for Messner: "His first major Himalayan climb in 1970, Nanga Parbat, turned out to be a tragic success. Both he and his brother Günther Messner reached the summit, but Günther died two days later on the descent. Reinhold lost seven of his toes and three fingers, which had become badly frostbitten during the climb and required amputation."

I can see how that was sensible and a lot of fun!

Everest, as the highest peak, will hold the most fascination, compared with a K2 or Shisha Pangma. If I told someone in a pub I climbed the Shisha Pangma, they wouldnt have a clue. (I didnt by the way nor will I). K2 is nearly as famous as Everest.


> considering the farce that Everest has become

Well, we agree about that!


> you simply do not have the right to decide if somebody should climb at those altitudes. It's none of your business.

I have an opinion, its my business as much as anyone elses, but only the Nepalese government (and others with dangerous peaks in their territories) have the right to decide.

> I see the loss of life as a tragedy but it doesn't mean we should stop people from going up there.

Think back to the pre-seatbelt days with cars. 1000's of deaths were seen as a tragedy, but they need not have been. People do need cars to go to work, some of them anyway. But we dont need to climb Everest. Thats the key point. These deaths can be avoided, if we decide to. Governments can continue to ignore the perils but at someone's cost. And death on Everest can be due to luck, chance, not skill or lack thereof, due to rapid unpredictable weather changes, etc.

> I think it shows a huge amount of disrespect to those who have died to use them as an excuse to ban what they obviously loved.

For those that died on the mountain and who didnt want to, due to no fault of their own, for example, stolen oxygen stores, oxygen tanks that were sold to them and were not properly filled, etc, surely those people would not want any more deaths on the mountain. If anything, as a respect for those that have died, shouldnt the mountain be closed (above a certain level)?


Coincidentally, Everest was discussed on Newstalk the other morning, with Stelfox's partner and another chap. They were saying that one in 10 die and they also lamented the fact that many experienced climbers have died - they spoke of mountain (summitting) fever, etc, and making bad decisions. One of them was hinting I think that the mountain should be closed.

I realise I may not convince you, or indeed others, so in the meantime, safe climbing, and in my case, walking!

Redspider

cavedave

Interesting topic this. Many people seem to agree that climbing Everest may not be the purest of climbing experiences.

People seem to disagree on fundamental rights though. Libertarians roughly believe that the governments role is to stop other people taking away my rights. It is not its role to stop me from injuring myself or to insulate me from the consequences of my own actions.

Coming at it from this point of view makes arguments as to whether it is stupid or cheating or illogical or whatever to climb Everest moot as it is none of my business what people want to do if it does not impinge on my rights.

I do not want to turn this discussion into a political thing just to explain the mindset that i am operating in.

BostonB

cavedave - I agree with you entirely.

redspider - In fact your missing the point. Reinhold Messner was given as an example of a serious climber who climbs without oxygen. Regardless, theres lots of serious climbers who climb without oxygen as indeed some of the Sherpa's do too. Yes its an increased risk, but then so are many activities.

There are some technical areas especially at at altitude on Everest, such as the Khumbu Icefall, Lhotse Face and the Hillary Step. You still need skills and training to get up Everest. I've heard it compared to Mount Rainier. Its not simply a hike, but just high. Regardless how many look down on it. IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Rainier
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/everest/expeditions/97/mail/resp0523.html


I'll quote you from "Into Thin Air" by Jon Krakauer

"Unfortunately the sort of Individual who is programmed to ignore personal distress and keep pushing to the top is frequently programmed to disregard signs of grave and imminent danger as well.....In order to succeed you must be exceedingly driven, but if you're too driven you're likely to die. Above 26,000 feet, moreover, the line between appropriate zeal and reckless summit fever becomes grievously thin. Thus the slopes of Everest are littered with corpses."

Its like any human endeavour , if you push too hard you can push too far.

BostonB

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/everestbeyond/sherpacam/sherpacam.html

redspider

BostonB wrote:

redspider - In fact your missing the point.

I'll quote Jon Krakauer:

"Above 26,000 feet, moreover, the line between appropriate zeal and reckless summit fever becomes grievously thin. Thus the slopes of Everest are littered with corpses."

I dont think I am missing the point at all since Jon Krakauer is making the exact same point a I am. ie: people are making stupid decisions, and decisions they did not intend to and would not normally do.

I dont think any reasonable human being would walk over/past the dead bodies of other human beings. The top of Everest with its collection of corpses is a mess. It needs to be cleaned up and the respect for those that died needs to be shown.

The Nepalese and the local Sherpa community arent going to do this on their own bat due to the tourism dollars so its up to the international community of mountain climbers and 'wannabes' to arrange it and also show the Nepalese that the tourism income will continue even if the mountain is being cleaned up and the respect for the dead shown. I wonder what the local Buddhists think?

By the way, what is the bodycount on other high peaks and are there many corpses left lying around?

Redspider

Evil Phil

I don't know what the *bodycount* is like a lot of climbers I don't tend to dwell on it. The public have a morbid fascination but that's to be expected as I doubt stories of some dude counting steps is going to excite.

BostonB

redspider wrote:

I dont think I am missing the point at all since Jon Krakauer is making the exact same point a I am. ie: people are making stupid decisions, and decisions they did not intend to and would not normally do.

Except thats not his point.

Your logic is bizarre. Why not ban people from driving, (especially males) because people get killed in cars.

redspider wrote:

I dont think any reasonable human being would walk over/past the dead bodies of other human beings.

Would you give your life and that of your team members to move them?

redspider wrote:

The Nepalese and the local Sherpa community arent going to do this on their own bat due to the tourism dollars ...

From what I've read they don't like and fear dead bodies and so won't touch them. I don't see what tourism has to do with it. There have been initiatives to bring down the debris of previous camps, oxygen etc. However this is not from the height where the bodies are.

Evil Phil

BostonB is right: People get killed doing lots of things, like driving, and yes there's regulations like speed limits but the expeditions that go to the greater ranges also have their regulations too. Like required fitness levels and competency levels. After all if you're not capable you're putting the lives of the entire team at risk.

Redspider, it sounds like you've watched a couple of documentaries and because you hillwalk consider yourself knowledgable on the subject. Your not. Your suggestions of a 'cable car' system shows that not only have you failed to understand why people climb mountains but you've no idea of what actually involved at climbing at altitude let alone working a construction site at altitude. And don't mention robots if you want me to take you seriously.

cavedave

Redspider has a point.
People may have started climbing out of their own free will but by the height oxygen deprivation sets in can they really be claimed to be acting with free will?

The only analogy I can draw is that of drug addiction. Someone can start taking a drug out of free will but once they get addicted do they still have free will? Put it this way a libertarian would say that they should not stop someone taking drugs if that is what they decide to do but once they are hooked on heroin are they really making decisions anymore? In a similar way if someone wants to climb a mountain fair enough but if in the death zone they are incapable of making rational decisions what does that mean about their free will?

As for walking past corpses that does sound horrible. It does happen though caves frequently have ancient skeletons in them. Anyone who watches time team can tell you that. Do cavers have the resonsibilities to excavate these bones and give them burials? The river Gangis is full of bits of corpse, should we ban Hindu festivals to bath in it?

Evil Phil

I think I need to say between acting out of free will and making a poor decision are the same thing for me in this thread, lest the thread descend* into pedantics. I would say that the lack of oxygen does make people incapable of making a correct decision. But even if you get it 100% right it and are entirely capable it doesn't mean that you're not going to have an accident. You could be avalanched, get an odema or just hit by a falling rock or another climber for that matter. You could fall.

Its relevant that most climbing accidents occur on the descent rather than the ascent of the mountain. This could be because the climbers let the guard down because they've succeeded, or simply because their abseil fails.

Saying lets ban climbing above 8,000m to save lives will then lead to banning above 7,000m where exactly the same dangers from oxygen starvation apply. And then 6,000m ...

Climbing at altitude still has the dangers that have been listed in this thread: poor descision making because of oxygen starvation. You don't have to be above 8,000m for that. And banning climbing above 8,000m isn't going to prevent that.

*Pun intended

BostonB

cavedave wrote:

Redspider has a point.
People may have started climbing out of their own free will but by the height oxygen deprivation sets in can they really be claimed to be acting with free will?

Point is its hard to tell when someone has it, and not everyone gets it. You'll only know your prone to it, if you get it. Its pot luck. By the time it happens theres very little people can do for you unless you are still mobile, or by chance there happens to the right people right beside you at the right time. Of course the people around you are likely also effected in varying degrees, so they may not notice or be physically unable to help. Someone on a radio much lower down can't help you either. Theres no way of getting up there except climbing.

If you have the right conditions, and everything comes together there's a very marginal chance you might get rescued. Many rescues do happen. But you can't rely on it.

cavedave wrote:

The only analogy I can draw is that of drug addiction. Someone can start taking a drug out of free will but once they get addicted do they still have free will?

You mean like alcohol, chocolate or medication. Any extreme sports or any possible dangerous activity. So ban it all. Live in a bubble.

cavedave wrote:

As for walking past corpses that does sound horrible. It does happen though caves frequently have ancient skeletons in them. Anyone who watches time team can tell you that. Do cavers have the resonsibilities to excavate these bones and give them burials? ...

Bad analogy. How about you are on the moon and there no help can get to you, you've 2hrs left on oxygen to get back to base before your risk of dying increases massively. Risk your life to save another is one thing but use that time to move dead bodies?

cavedave

You mean like alcohol, chocolate or medication. Any extreme sports or any possible dangerous activity. So ban it all. Live in a bubble.

Good point there are many things we can get addicted to. And so many things that remove our free will. But we do not ban them all.

BostonB

Banning the use of oxygen seems like a good compromise...

Diarmuid

BostonB wrote:

Banning the use of oxygen seems like a good compromise...

Great idea, I'd like to nominate a few for that ban

... oh you mean supplemental O2? pity.

BostonB

Diarmuid wrote:

Great idea, I'd like to nominate a few for that ban

... oh you mean supplemental O2? pity.

Funny guy

redspider

Apologies for not getting back sooner on this topic and to your replies.

Evil Phil wrote:

I don't know what the *bodycount* is like a lot of climbers I don't tend to dwell on it. The public have a morbid fascination but that's to be expected as I doubt stories of some dude counting steps is going to excite.

I think that many climbers have an interest in the problem of deaths due to safety reasons for themselves. This is not 'gore' watching, as if it were, the public would be encouraging climbers to take as many risks as possible.

BostonB wrote:

Why not ban people from driving, (especially males) because people get killed in cars.

Most sane countries do prevent u-16 yr olds or similar ages from driving because we think they cant do it safely. We dont ban driving, and I am not calling for a ban on mountain climbing. But there are limits to risks in all areas.

There is no necessity to climb everest especially as the peak is littered with dead bodies. Surely the time has come to give those unfortunate dead climbers the respect they deserve, as well as return the mountain to respect. I think the 'rectifying' of the peak is a much more worthwhile cause than someone getting to the peak for 30 mins.

Would you give your life and that of your team members to move them?

No, people do not need to give their lives. It may be a long process, but every team that is now making peak attempts is a wasted effort that could be spent bringing back down a human body.

From what I've read they don't like and fear dead bodies and so won't touch them. I don't see what tourism has to do with it. There have been initiatives to bring down the debris of previous camps, oxygen etc. However this is not from the height where the bodies are.

I can understand that for religious and other reasons they may not want to bring down dead bodies.

In terms of tourism, Everest and the mountain ranges are a big income earner for Nepal in terms of dollar spend. The Nepalese government and the local authorities would not want the Everest-dollars to be stopped or reduced in anyway, if there was a call to 'close' the mountain and clean it up. Surely you can see that?

Overall, I'm for moutain climbing and taking risks. One dead person is an accident, two is more than a coincidence, but the vast nmbers on Everest at this stage is more than mere accidents, they are now probabilistic, Everest is more than a black spot for death, alas.

I'll get back to other points later,

Redspider

BostonB

Everest a Black spot? Vast numbers? Other sports and activities have higher death rates than climbing, and other mountains have higher death rates than Everest. Bodies are often not recovered in other sports, and on other mountains. Yes its a dangerous sport but you need to put it into perspective.

Covenline

cavedave wrote:

Humans are danger addicted curious monkeys who do these stupid things that make no logical sense. Once you start telling people that risk is unacceptable you end up with an infantile sterile moribound society.

I love this quote, hit the nail on the head there pal

Evil Phil

I've just started reading Mountains of the Mind: A History of a Fascination. It explores both the history of mountaineering and why people climb, so far its been a good read and I can recommend it.

BostonB

Evil Phil wrote:

I've just started reading Mountains of the Mind: A History of a Fascination. It explores both the history of mountaineering and why people climb, so far its been a good read and I can recommend it.

Thanks for that.