On Everest it has come down to survival of the lowest.

I have to agree that this subject really makes one think real hard
about certain things.

I find it very difficult to relate to this scenario. I’m probably very different in many ways to the types of persons that attempt these dangerous climbs. I know who I am, and I’m no serious thrill seeker.
I find my thrills in the simpler things in life,............ quality time with my wife and children, watching my children achieve their academic goals, taking a stroll on a warm summer night, taking a weekend drive to nowhere special, watching a good movie, indulging in my collecting hobbies, recreational target shooting, going to a nice concert, talking to a friend, seeking information and chatting on the Internet, and so many other things that I feel make my life pleasurable.

We that live, will all eventually die. We all assess our risks very differently, but one commonality is that we all face them every day of our lives. Diseases, accidents, crime, war, our eating & drinking habits, working, walking, running, and just about anything else that we do in this world that brings expected levels of risk. I understand that these risks are out there all the time and all around us, but knowing that they are there, does not entice me in any way to seek out activities that would add unreasonable risks to the already risky lives we all live.
I’m not talking about the types of high risks that our soldiers, fireman, and others take to serve their families, communities, and country, but risks that “I” consider (IMO) done as selfish personal thrill seeking. A seriously dangerous act that one may do for temporary glory, fame, or thrill,........... I just can’t relate to.

It’s kind of how I see playing Russian Roulette, though all of us that live will also die, I’m not going to play chicken with a loaded handgun for a moment of thrill.

So back to this risky mountain climbing that these folks were a part of. I know for a fact that I would never be one of them. I don’t mean to sound like I’m talking bad about them, it’s just not something that I personally can rationalize or relate to. I won’t be climbing a dangerous mountain, jumping from a perfectly good airplane, or playing that Russian Roulette any time soon.

With all of that said, the kind of person that I know I am, would prevent me from passing by a person that could seriously use my help. I could not imagine seeing somebody that is in serious trouble, and me not trying to help them out in some way.


But, that’s coming from a guy that would never consider doing this act for thrill or glory in the first place.

Now, how about if I were to “try” to place myself in one of their heads for just this moment. What if I was one of those that trained long and hard to accomplish this dangerous task of trying to climb a mountain that few in this world ever try.

I must first think that I must know how dangerous this task will be. That I may lose my life trying to achieve this one adventure/thrill.

Think of that for a moment, the person is willing to risk their own life to achieve this thrill, this one achievement! This person is willing to do this, and so too are all the others that are attempting it. They all know beforehand that the risk is great, and yet for this moment of fame/achievement, they risk it all.

They risk their own lives............... “THEIR OWN!”. So maybe it’s so important to them that others would be looked at as inconsequential,.................. “Hey, he knew the danger as well as I did, so I must move on”.

I myself could not just pass by someone that needed such dire help from another human being, but a person that is willing to lose all they have to achieve this goal for themselves, may be willing to look at other casualties as just that, "other" casualties, and maybe something that they all recognize as part of the task they must accept in order to achieve their goal.

Maybe I’m wrong, but as I said before, I have a hard time relating to even the attempt of climbing such a majestic mountain for simply a personal achievement.

Just my opinion, guys, no need to bite my head off for it ;)
 
I read the article, Dave:
Not all of the 40 were capable of helping. He was not off the beaten track. No one had to climb from Base camp to reach him. Enough of the 40 were healthy enough to have saved his life. Launching a rescue attempt- you have a valid point; people die trying.

But people were already there. They were there, and there was enough of them to have organized and save the man's life. None of the conditions, weather cold or mental impairment are sufficient to stop this, as those same conditions did not stop some of the 40 from reaching the summit.

Hillary said he'd have stopped his climb and saved the man. Experts refute the excuse making. If the rationalizations were valid, this would not be an article in the paper, it would not stir debate, it would not find shame.

I understand the skull itself makes a nice candle holder.


munk
 
I remember what I wanted to say; People do walk by violent crimes being commited. They walk away in all kinds of places and circumstances, and they walk away in India or Turkey or New York City.

We can add Everest to the list of circumstances.

We watched them die in New Orleans, we are watching them in the Sudan, we watched them in Berlin.


munk
 
Tough stuff. Sounds like one hell of a shitty vacation. Can you imagine the trash and body strewn view up there? Hmmmm. No thanks.

I can see justifying stepping over the dead, but the dying, thats unconscienable. If you had to climb out to one in a precarious ledge or something dangerous, maybe, but stepping over a living human without concern that they are dying. Thats cold blooded even for me.
 
I agree with what you guys are saying, but I think the choice is more along the lines of "What can I do to help this man?"....if the answer is honestly nothing, your options are to keep going or to turn back simply to report what is already known.

Inglis told TVNZ's Close-up program: "We couldn't do anything. He had no oxygen, he had no proper gloves . . ."

Told that it had been suggested that Inglis' party should have stopped their ascent and rescued the man, Inglis replied: "Absolutely, that's a very fair comment. Trouble is, at 8500 metres it's extremely difficult to keep yourself alive - let alone keep anyone else alive."

In radio calls, his party was told that if the man had been there any length of time without oxygen, there was nothing that could be done for him"

So its not that simple. No one just stepped over this guy and kept walking. They radioed back to camp, weighed and measured the situation, and decided it as more dangerous to attempt a rescue that would have most likely killed anyone who tried than to continue.

I think in our minds we all envision guys hopping this body, running to the summit, but at that elevation these guys are taking a step every few minutes, not plodding along at what normal people would consider hiking.

Im not saying they shouldnt have stopped and done wht they could, but froma few reporst ive read, its pretty universally accpeted that this guy, hiking solo, without any oxygen and lackign proper equipment would have required far more than anyone there could have offered without putting their life as much in jeopardy as his own.....

All heresay, though....but i find it hard to believe there were 40 arrogant businessman who hopped his body and ran to the top with no regard to the gravity of the situation.
 
We need an ATM type machine up there. Instead of Pepsi it would dispense canisters of O2, candy bars, and revolvers. I was thinking the revolvers should only have one bullet, but then I realized popping a few bystanders might be a fitting final act.

Now someone is going to say; "munk Ole boy, ATM machines will not work in that kind of circumstance. It's apparent you are naive about the harsh conditions, and that is why you are condemning those who did not help."

We are looking at a kind of event threshold. It's intersting. Like people in a riot with a mob, they're doing things they wouldn't ordinarily. We are looking at levels of difficulty regarding rescue. For some folks, the amount of trouble they're willing to undergo is quite small, like those who closed their windows to block out the screams of that dying woman in New York. (the famous case- ) For most of us the resistance is considerable, a lot, a whole bunch. And for a few, the risk and damage imparted is immense; some people rush into a house fire and do manage to save people. Of course many do not make it.

I think we may have the technology to put an ATM vending machine on Everest, one that works in those conditions.

On a serious note, it would be wonderful if technology could be develped that would save people on Mt. Everest.



munk
 
munk said:
On a serious note, it would be wonderful if technology could be develped that would save people on Mt. Everest.
Click to expand...

Though I agree that this would be a positive thing, many of the same folks the system could some day help out, (the climbers), would probably fight the idea.

I believe that most of these guys that climb this mountain are folks that don't want there to be training wheels added to their bikes. They want to know that what they have achieved has not been watered down so much that it no longer equals the dangerous climbs that were done before them. That they took just about the same risks as the people before them had. That the rescue chances were just as slim. I'm sure they would regret that thinking if they were ever in trouble up there, but by then their mind change would be too late ;)
 
The ethics folks talk about making a "ranking" of "goods." Here, it's a "good" thing to climb a mountain, and it's a "good" thing to try and save a life, or perhaps to stay and show compassion to someone whom you can't save.

Now, if you're climbing the mountain because you've got to stop some wacko from setting off a nuclear bomb, then step on over the man. If you're climbing the mountain to demonstrate to yourself that you've the mental and physical toughness to do it ...

... well, maybe the universe has set you a different task to learn. It's instructive that to some, it may be easier to climb Mt. Everest than to give up/delay a personal dream to demonstrate their humanity. Which of the two really makes you a man?


t.
 
There's a whole lot of truth about leaving the man to die, that it is an almost impossible task.

Think about this; we are social animals. Our very perception of reality is established by societal conditioning. Almost all of this knowledge is assumed by the individual rather than discovered. If a guy had to figure out the whole shebang by himself, he wouldn't make it. We take this for granted- it's already proved, we don't question it.

It used to be NO ONE climbed that mountain but the very very very few who were specially trained. There was no belief or perception that it was possible for most of us to reach the summit. Look at how that changed over our lifetimes; now we have hundreds of people who've made it. By the same token, no one believes that rescue is possible. I mean, sure, it happens, but the standard rule is it's suicidal, hopless, and pointless to even try. This is taken for granted by nearly all the climbers, as well as us average Joe's.

Rescue needs to be recognized as possible before many of the climbers will even consider it. In some conditions, X, Y, and Z, you CAN rescue a person on Everest. Once that is internalized, and becomes part of the reality we all know, rescue will be more available, and then some of our moral judgement will be re-adjusted.


This is interesting stuff and please forgive me for long posts. I will hike with Dave Rishar if he wants to; I won't be able to keep up anyway, and if he pushes it too hard, I'll need him to rescue me.


munk
 
I think you should give it a rest, munk. Wait 24hrs and get some sleep over this issue.

I am not sure if you're right or not, but the very sarcastic way you are writing right now is not adding anything to your argument. It's discrediting in my eyes. [Not counting the last post, I was writing while you posted.] [Edit]

YMMV.

Blessings from Hamburg,

Keno
 
>>>>>>>>I think you should give it a rest, munk. Wait 24hrs and get some sleep over this issue.

I am not sure if you're right or not, but the very sarcastic way you are writing right now is not adding anything to your argument. It's discrediting in my eyes. [Not counting the last post, I was writing while you posted.] [Edit]

YMMV.

Blessings from Hamburg,

Keno>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Keno, you certainly have that option.

Peace/health making is a thing I'm personally thrilled to see in this forum.
Like many threads before this, my and others posts need to be examined in their entirety. Look what is happening now in the thread; it's changing, it's interactive. When you have the freedom and take the responsibility, the high level of conduct and interaction here proves over and over again to be healthy. Heck, more than just good, we've made success; our community functions better than many official organizations.
We make good stuff here, Keno, and you have to have faith it comes out right in the end.
Otherwise, HI forum is just like every other place on the net.


munk
 
The first rule of saving a drowning man is that you don't risk your own life to attempt his rescue.

From another hiker that day:
"You could sit with him for a few hours until he dies and then die yourself," he said. "You certainly can't carry another human being on your back at that altitude.You can be alright one minute and semi-conscious half an hour later. You dare not stop for 20 minutes at that altitude.""

He had purchased only two four-litre bottles - half the volume that many take for the climb - from his Kathmandu trekking agency. He was alone, working with an unprofessional, unguided company.

As much as I hate to hear about it or imagine it, I think this event was most caused by the dead man's ego and foolishness than any lack of compassion in those that chose to keep moving and keep alive rather than join him in his icy grave.
 
On a serious note, it would be wonderful if technology could be develped that would save people on Mt. Everest.

If this were the US, we would have installed a pressurized buger joint/lodge complete with snow bunnies, a hot tub, a ski lift, and a tower observatory that puts you at least 20 meters above anything Edmund Hillary could have reached.

But, Everest remains an extremely dangerous place. I believe it was the Mallory expedition (edit: correction it was Dr. Charles Houston 1953 expedition*) that was once forced to rescue someone from K2. They were roped together and almost lost then entire team on the way down. A single climber who managed to anchor and arrest the fall of the other 8 climbers.

Controversy is nothing new to mountaineering. Many climbers have been accused of abandoning team members, hording supplies, and otherwise negligently killing fellow climbers. Fritz, the leader of the 1939 K2 expidition was one of those; although, the mood changed over the years as climbers came to grasp the conditions and the limitations of his team members. By all accounts Fritz was an exceptional climber; and remained so well into his later years.

bio on Fritz here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Wiessner

n2s

*It was at Camp VIII, at about 7772 meters that the party was hit by a blizzard which lasted many days. On the 7th of August one member, Arthur Gilkey, developed thrombophlebitis. In view of his serious condition it was decided to start descent in spite of bad weather. At the end of the day, the party was involved in a "fall on a steep slope as a result of a slip and tangling of ropes". Luckily nobody was seriously injured. Subsequently all members assembled at the nearby camp VII. Gilkey was secured on the snow slope with two ice axes until a party could be mustered to bring him across the slope to the camp. However, when three members of the party returned to Gilkey, they found that he had been swept away by an avalanche. It took rest of the party five hard days to reach the base camp. On reaching there, the party immediately started for Skardu because one of the members, George Bell, had very bad frost-bitten feet. In spite of their very best efforts, the Americans could not climb K2 from the south-east ridge.
 
Ever notice that the curriculum you think you're being taught, frequently isn't?

My 13 year old son goes to karate classes with an 11 year old blue belt. This younger lad is a real technical whiz, and a great kid ... outranks most of the folks there, aside from a couple of other, teen-aged Blues. The class is for folks who've had at least 6 months of training. Over the past month, the Sensei's been talking about how to teach karate, and giving each student a chance to do some one-on-one peer teaching.

Last evening, the Sensei and the teaching black belts stayed home ... to run a little experiment on leadership and group dynamics. After 10 minutes, the two older Blues took charge, and ran the class as best they could. Chris came home fuming that he hadn't learned anything ... so I asked him: what was the Sensei trying to teach? Karate isn't all about techniques ...

Fine, Chris said. But Aaron (the 11 year old Blue) couldn't possibly learn anything from the teens he outranked ... and those teenagers didn't "allow" him to teach, 'cause he was younger than most of the class. Not fair! So Aaron goofed off, and disrupted ...

I asked Chris if maybe Aaron's curriculum was to learn something about leadership. That in the situation, demonstrating his leadership skills might have meant ensuring that the less experienced Blues had a supportive environment in which to teach ... and this time he'd missed the opportunity the Sensei had given him to discover that.

When confronted by a dying man, the mountain those 40 climbers had to face wasn't Everest, any more than the curriculum Aaron had to learn was throwing punches or doing kata. If they don't yet, they will one day wish they'd recognized the opportunity to learn that they'd been given.

t.
 
Munk,

dont get me wrong, I dont mean to insult you, I was just having the impression that there where maybe too many emotions involved. I'll shut up now :foot:
 
I'll repeat it, because it bears repeating.

Sharp was not in trouble, Sharp was dying. Inglis and company were not equipped for a rescue. They were equipped for a climb.

Inglis called for help. Base camp said, "You can't help him." (And they were right, and Inglis probably already knew that, but it helps to hear it from others.)

Here's the next question for those of us who don't agree with this course of action: if you were there, how would you have handled it?
 
TikTock said:
The first rule of saving a drowning man is that you don't risk your own life to attempt his rescue.

From another hiker that day:
"You could sit with him for a few hours until he dies and then die yourself," he said. "You certainly can't carry another human being on your back at that altitude.You can be alright one minute and semi-conscious half an hour later. You dare not stop for 20 minutes at that altitude.""

He had purchased only two four-litre bottles - half the volume that many take for the climb - from his Kathmandu trekking agency. He was alone, working with an unprofessional, unguided company.

As much as I hate to hear about it or imagine it, I think this event was most caused by the dead man's ego and foolishness than any lack of compassion in those that chose to keep moving and keep alive rather than join him in his icy grave.
Click to expand...

You are probably exactly right on the realities up there :(

Though I understand that I, as one person, would not have been able to have saved him, I still would have found it hard to not at least attempt to give him a few moments of comfort, that's all I'm saying. When I said above that I would personally feel the urge to assist in some way, it did not mean that I would be able to play superman and save the man, but some compassion would have had to be shown on my part.

I completely agree that if the situation does not allow you to save him, it would be useless to stay there long enough for one to die as well. I just feel that at least offering a few moments of compassion would have been in order.

Then again, I'm here on dry warm ground, and can't imagine what those horrible conditions may do to a person's thought process/state of mind.

Maybe the survival instincts kick in hard enough to push compassion right into remission. I just don't know, and hope I never find myself in that sort of an environment.

Again, I surely would never purposely place myself in that situation.
 
Dave Rishar said:
I'll repeat it, because it bears repeating.

Sharp was not in trouble, Sharp was dying. Inglis and company were not equipped for a rescue. They were equipped for a climb.

Inglis called for help. Base camp said, "You can't help him." (And they were right, and Inglis probably already knew that, but it helps to hear it from others.)
Click to expand...

I can't see that Inglis did anything wrong under the circumstances he was in.

Even a guy coming up upon him afterwards, and if the man was still alive, would only be able to offer him a few moments of comfort before again moving on.

It sure seems like a shitty reality, but the reality just the same :(

The moral of this story,................................... "Leave that mountain alone!" ;)
 
<<<<<<<dont get me wrong, I dont mean to insult you, I was just having the impression that there where maybe too many emotions involved. I'll shut up now >>>>>>> Richard Allen

No, don't ever 'shut up'. Look at my response again- peace making is a good thing. If you stop trying or giving a damn, the forum loses that much more. Take a chance and tell me what you think always. I can't speak for others, but I know many of my friends agree. That's why this place is alive and well and other forums don't 'get it.'



munk
 
Dave Rishar said:
...Here's the next question for those of us who don't agree with this course of action: if you were there, how would you have handled it?
Click to expand...
Quite simply, I'd have tried to get him down, or have stayed with him as he died. Then walked back down the mountain 'till the next day, or the next week. Or if necessary, the next lifetime.

What I wouldn't have done, is try for the summit, just leaving him there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top