[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Groves

I understand that the margins for life in that environment are slim even when all goes well.

I understand that to undertake a rescue put people in jeopardy and most definitely eliminates your ability to reach the summit.

I understand that people have spent many years of training and millions of dollars to position themselves to do what many people aspire to do. Sponsorships. Equipment. Training. Permits, etc.

I understand.

It's a living person, folks. Have you no soul?

The avalanche of justifications always begins with questions like, "Can you explain exactly how you'd get someone down?"

Everyone who shoots for the summit is aiming to accomplish what is all but impossible. Everyone accepts death as a potential outcome, do they not?

So, if they've already accepted a death-sized risk, now all they're saying by passing up the living is that reaching the top of some mountain is more important than saving a living person. It's not even worth trying, they're essentially saying.

It's not like the cure to cancer is at the top. It's not like the solution to world peace is attainable if only you get to the top of everest.

People want the ego boost that reaching the summit gives them, without all that nastiness of kindness getting in the way.

I hope they go through life haunted by the horrible trade-off they made.

I'm generalizing, surely. I'm no expert, double surely.

All the justifications get chucked right quick if it's your wife or child up there (guys with bad wives insert joke here, of course). They get chucked cause they were made of tissue paper, and if enough climbers talk about it like it's justifiable, then we get a trail littered with bodies, which it is.

Maybe I'm just ticked because Burger King pulled their Jack-in-the-Box-esque tacos from the menu after only a 6month trial run. That could very well be. I think it sulleys the whole accomplishment.

It's a nice dream. The reality, unfortunately, is that if you try and help someone up there, you die. Period.