Abandoned on Everest

[Silock]

Originally Posted by Groves

Fixed.

Can you explain exactly how you'd get someone down?

[Groves]

Originally Posted by Silock

Can you explain exactly how you'd get someone down?

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.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Groves

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?

You try hauling anyone but yourself off that mountain, death isn't going to be a possibility, it's a certainty.

[DMAC]

Originally Posted by Brock

You try hauling anyone but yourself off that mountain, death isn't going to be a possibility, it's a certainty.

Yeah, only if you are a pussy.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by DMAC

Yeah, only if you are a pussy.

[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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Silock

Can you explain exactly how you'd get someone down?

Originally Posted by Groves

No.

There, much shorter this way.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Groves

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

It's a bunch of extremely wealthy people who use their money to hire guides and sherpas to lug all of their crap up and down a mountain and lead them on a line, make all of the decisions for them, care for them, and take their photo at the top so they can say "I did it."

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Groves

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.

Your long rambling attempt to explain what you meant does not change the fact that your opinion was really dumb.

You apparently have this presumption that climbing everest is this foolishly reckless form of russian roulette, as if you are saying "well what the hell you fool, you already threw your own life away by climbing the mountain, so you might as well try to rescue that person and figure out a way to save both your own life and the other person"

Your presumption is wrong. Yes, unprepared people are suicidal for trying, but climbers who have a lot of experience, training, and preparation in good weather can climb this mountain relatively safely. The only problem is they can not make a single mistake. (and sometimes "making a mistake" means continuing up when you obviously have to give up due to weather or equipment problems and you need to start going back down) If they do everything correctly, careful every step of the way, they have an extremely good chance of making it just fine. The most skilled and most careful climbers have climbed this and similar mountains a dozen or more times.

On other lesser mountains, making a mistake with equipment, movements, etc could result in death or could result in injury, or could result in a frightening close call. On everest near the top, a mistake basically means you die, 99%+.

Trying to get someone, close to the very top, who is severely hurt and cant do much climbing anymore, qualifies as a fatal mistake. Climbing everest is not a foolish suicide mission if done correctly, and no one should be ashamed or haunted for not needlessly throwing their own life away in a doomed attempt to save someone else who cant be saved.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Your long rambling attempt to explain what you meant does not change the fact that your opinion was really dumb.

You apparently have this presumption that climbing everest is this foolishly reckless form of russian roulette, as if you are saying "well what the hell you fool, you already threw your own life away by climbing the mountain, so you might as well try to rescue that person and figure out a way to save both your own life and the other person"

Your presumption is wrong. Yes, unprepared people are suicidal for trying, but climbers who have a lot of experience, training, and preparation in good weather can climb this mountain relatively safely. The only problem is they can not make a single mistake. If they do everything correctly, careful every step of the way, they have an extremely good chance of making it just fine. On other mountains, making a mistake with equipment, movements, etc could result in death or could result in injury, or could result in a frightening close call. On everest near the top, a mistake basically means you die, 99%+.

Trying to get someone, close to the very top, who is severely hurt and cant do much climbing anymore, qualifies as a fatal mistake. Climbing everest is not a foolish suicide mission if done correctly, and no one should be ashamed or haunted for not needlessly throwing their own life away in a doomed attempt to save someone else who cant be saved.

Jomolungma is for pussies. Hardcore dudes go up K2.

[Groves]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Climbing everest is not a foolish suicide mission if done correctly, and no one should be ashamed or haunted for not needlessly throwing their own life away in a doomed attempt to save someone else who cant be saved.

I very much agree.

I think my long rambling attempt at an explanation fell short.

I'm not saying that everyone who's had to let someone die is soulless or should be haunted or subjected to Pauly Shore movies or anything like that.

Anyone who's been in tight spots themselves, or watched "Touching the Void" knows that the decision to move on and leave someone is never light. It's not always an easy call, probably never.

I think it's naive to believe that men can never be swayed by ego or pride into making bad decisions. Decisions to pass by when they could aid or save. Those are the men that should be haunted, not well meaning folks who have done all they reasonably could.

[Silock]

Originally Posted by Groves

I think it's naive to believe that men can never be swayed by ego or pride into making bad decisions. Decisions to pass by when they could aid or save. Those are the men that should be haunted, not well meaning folks who have done all they reasonably could.

That I can agree with, for the most part. But once you get above "the death zone," there is very, very little you can actually do.

In season 1 of Expedition Everest, one of the climbers insisted on continuing to climb up when it was obvious to everyone else that he couldn't. There was literally nothing they could do to stop him. All they could do was talk to him, because picking him up from his sitting position and helping him back down just wasn't an option, even for the master sherpas. Luckily for him, he still had enough energy and sense to turn around.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Groves

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.

All you'd have to do is throw that person on your back, while you yourself are fighting hallucination and extreme fatigue from lack of oxygen, in a -40° environment which can see wind guts over 100mph, all while traversing terrain just like this:

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Silock

Can you explain exactly how you'd get someone down?

Chevy Chase sledding style, Christmas Vacation.

[-King-]

You still think that you have to help someone Groves?