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

sbrr2.jpg



You know something, this would make a nice sleigh riding "hill" to go down on! :)

Just kidding, guys! ;)
 
It's really an interesting question: when do we need to help our fellow humans in trouble? It's sort of like the question of whether to let a neighbor into your bunker when the zombies are on the roam, except that we see how 40 people decided in real life.

With these sort of questions, we certainly have to look at a) what's the risk to me, b) what are the chances of me doing any good, and c) how grave of a situation is the other person in?

Should we also include d) is it their own dang fault for not being better prepared or e) is it someone I care about (family, forumite, etc.)?

The guy's been dismissed as unprepared and improperly equipped. I find it hard to believe that someone completely incompetent would be able to get up to that point. Much is made of how difficult it is to function at that altitude and that you're doing well to survive yourself. It seems like EVERYONE is somewhat ill-equipped and underprepared up there.
 
The problem with weighing rescue based upon the victim's "deservability" is there isn't time to do this. And if we're going to accept this individual as not worth the effort because of lack of planning, we let in a whole host of other criteria. I'm a bigot so he isn't getting my help cause he's white. I heard he was rich so he isn't getting my help. He eats meat. He doesn't eat meat. He beats....oh heck, family forum.

You get the idea.


munk
 
Munk: I agree.

If I warn someone not to park where the river might wash the car away, I won't go to any great effort to save their car.

But if there's a person getting washed away in the car, I'll still throw a rope, life ring, etc. It doesn't matter if I personally warned them twice and got them to sign a release. It doesn't matter if it makes me miss bingo or American Idol.

Will I leave the shore, put myself in danger and swim into the water? I dunno. But those 40 guys who walked by had already decided to put themselves in great danger by going up there. They were not standing on the shore, they were driving around in the river, too.
 
Hi FallingKnife-

My concerns were raised when I learned the deceased paid a cut-rate organization $6,000 for logistical support. He was alone on the mountain. From everything I've read, a fee of $35,000 per climber is typical from respected companies in that specialized business. They typically attempt to summit with a team-based approach.

The other notable item is his total compressed oxygen supply was less than half of what a fit climber would use on the duration of the trek.

Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm..."

~ Blue Jays ~
 
Perhaps, the practical question, is what sort of duty do we owe to someone like David Sharp. It may have taken scores of people, millions of dollars, and the sacrifice of many personal goals just to attempt to keep him alive; all because he failed to make adequate preparations for his climb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not2sharp

The answer to this is in every domestic mountain range; a great many of the people needing rescue are those who are poorly prepared and/or intoxicated. It costs millions of dollars. The point is it happens all the time. We pay for this all the time. Some of these people are seriously hurt and require medical care. Many of them are young and do not have insurance.

I don't know it would cost 'millions of dollars' to have saved Sharp. No one does. It may have. But our society saves first, and does the social/economic/moral triage later.


munk
 
The other notable item is his total compressed oxygen supply was less than half of what a fit climber would use on the duration of the trek.>>>> Blue Jays

We know he wasn't all that bright. What if I told you he'd planned on holding his breath for the other half of the oxygen supply?

Doesn't matter. We can't run a background check or IQ test on everyone we save in our society.


(btw- let me know if my joke was funny.)
munk
 
Falling Knife-
It's 'ironic' and funny we are applying a standard of personal responsibility to the Everest climber we rarely apply to anyone in our enabling society. I mean, we're the same people who accept tens of millions of illegal immigrants, and then teach them in their own language in our school system, because it isn't fair they don't know english

Walmart citizenry excells at enabling. We buy; we enable. (I'm writing a new code of ethics for the next generation)


munk
 
Hi Munk-

I thought the part about holding his breath for the entire second half of the journey was humorous. You're right, David Sharp ironically wasn't the sharpest crampon on the boot.

~ Blue Jays ~
 
Let's do Everest on the Cheap, eh?

I wonder if there is any explanation for not taking 4 cannisters of O2- LIKE everyone else. (you didn't need experience to know that)


Very strange.
I was thinking the Mafia should force those persons it wants dead to first attempt Everest- might save the cost of a hitman.



munk
 
Hi Munk-

There are certain areas in life where one doesn't seek Bargain Basement deals. Avoid the lowest price vendor when securing these, by example:
  • new brakes for your 600-horsepower racecar
  • consultations for upcoming brain surgery
  • logistical support for Mount Everest climbs
Can you imagine the conversation that must have taken place? "Jeez, that's pretty expensive for all the gear. Is there anything we can ditch to reduce the price another grand? Oh, good...those oxygen canisters must get heavy, anyway. My wife wants to remodel the bathroom this year and..."

~ Blue Jays ~
 
...you don't want bargain condoms
You don't want your trusted 30/30 in Africa, no matter how accurate you are, if you're hunting Cape Buffalo
if the guy is called Loui, Lefty, Lucky or Leroy, and makes you knock four times on the side door followed by two quick raps, get the abortion elsewhere...


No, there is no conversation imaginable for leaving O2 tanks behind when climbing Everest. There just isn't. Oh well, I did think of one possibility that allowed Mr Sharp to take only 2 tanks instead of 4;
"I'll be quick," he said...


munk
 
Wow, what a great thread! And I have to say some of Munk's best writing ever. Especially liked the little story, and don't think it was too sarcastic at all. Some points need to be driven home hard to be truly appreciated. Enjoyable and thought provoking. I also have to say with all due respect for Satori who's opinion really counts with me, that I find myself in agreement with both Munk and Tom Fetter. The Golden Rule applies, period.

The real responsibility for the tragedy IMO lies with the guides who are now taking dozens of unqualified people to the summit. Perhaps Hillary is looking at this through the viewfinder solely of his own experience: professional, highly competent climbers who took care of each other. These new guides are running people up as fast as they can get the deposits, and hardly any of them are in the same league remotely as Hillary and his peers.

People who are well off now want to add another ego feather to their cap. Forget experiencing the climb, if they could get a helicopter to fly at 29,000 feet they would just chopper up to the top, hop out for 5 seconds and fly off to say they did it. It's the new status symbol, and no matter how much this guy wanted to cut corners a responsible ethical quide wouldn't have allowed it. I'm sure the dying man didn't have a clue as to what an ordeal he was in for.

I would like to think that I would have done what I consider to be the right thing and stopped to help the guy back down. As I said, the Golden Rule applies. (Then I would have given the guide hell and asked for another crack at the summit no matter how long it took!)

Norm
 
munk said:
Let's do Everest on the Cheap, eh?

I wonder if there is any explanation for not taking 4 cannisters of O2- LIKE everyone else. (you didn't need experience to know that)


Very strange.
I was thinking the Mafia should force those persons it wants dead to first attempt Everest- might save the cost of a hitman.



munk
Click to expand...

Not everybody uses supplemental oxygen; there are still some amazing purist who have done Everest without it (eg. the Whittaker brothers). Unfortunately, it takes a rare combination of physical traits - like genetically oversized lung capacity - to be able to do this; and, you can never be sure of how your body will react to high altitude climbing, unless you have done it before. People who have been outstanding olympic quality athletes at ground level have been known to fail quickly even at base camp; while some unlikely climbers have proven incredibly strong on these mountains. Traditionally, climbers would gradually work themselves on bigger and bigger mountains until they were confident that they could handle the big peaks. It was an process of gaining skills and experience while testing your body's reaction to the environmental conditions.

Unfortunately, it seems that anyone with deep pockets and big brass ones can be found on that mountain today. In 1996 one guy on K2 step out of his tent in boot liners, immediately slipped in the snow as everyone looked on in horror, and slid away from camp and off a 6000' cliff. He had served in a military mountain unit, but had had no prior experience on the high peaks. By traditonal standards, he shouldn't have been on anything more challenging then a well guided climb in the Alps.

n2s
 
TikTock said:
I think in all but our wildest dreams we underestimate how extreme a climate this occurred in. Even with gear that will keep you warm enough to live, there is not enough oxygen to breathe. Combine that with the landscape which requires you to exert much more energy and oxygen than anywhere else, and its basically unimaginable. I did a winter traverse in the whites of NH and it was 20 below with 70 mph winds, and even that was the most humbling experience of my life. I have no doubt if i had twisted my ankle, i would have been dead in less than a few hours once I stopped. In places like these hikers were, those hours becomd minutes. From descripions I am now reading, this guy was in the process of death, not a guy who was just tired sitting next to a rock.
Click to expand...

year round, people die in the Whites - they're just a two hour drive from me. there's few [locally?] famous climbers and such, that in summer, got caught in a major snow storm, guy's buddy got hurt, and they put him in two sleeping bags and all the warm clothes - the other one tried to get off the mountain, doctors took both his legs below the knee to frostbite, the buddy died. in summer.

the Whites typically get temps and winds that are ... surreal compared to sea level where i live. 60 below zero, and 120 mph winds aren't unusual. the windchill at that level... insane. they have a research station at the top, and i've read that in such conditions, bare skin will get ice crystals IN it in 5 seconds.

and that's just a puny new england < 6000 foot mountain. a couple winters ago, the sea level temps at the base plummeted to below 50 below zero... that's not windchill. trees froze and exploded. deer herds died in place. i remember a story where rangers found an entire herd, layed down, frozen solid, basically freezer burned. yikes.

bladite
 
not2sharp said:
Not everybody uses supplemental oxygen; there are still some amazing purist who have done Everest without it (eg. the Whittaker brothers). Unfortunately, it takes a rare combination of physical traits - like genetically oversized lung capacity - to be able to do this; and, you can never be sure of how your body will react to high altitude climbing, unless you have done it before. People who have been outstanding olympic quality athletes at ground level have been known to fail quickly even at base camp; while some unlikely climbers have proven incredibly strong on these mountains. Traditionally, climbers would gradually work themselves on bigger and bigger mountains until they were confident that they could handle the big peaks. It was an process of gaining skills and experience while testing your body's reaction to the environmental conditions.

Unfortunately, it seems that anyone with deep pockets and big brass ones can be found on that mountain today. In 1996 one guy on K2 step out of his tent in boot liners, immediately slipped in the snow as everyone looked on in horror, and slid away from camp and off a 6000' cliff. He had served in a military mountain unit, but had had no prior experience on the high peaks. By traditonal standards, he shouldn't have been on anything more challenging then a well guided climb in the Alps.

n2s
Click to expand...

yup, there are the purists who feel that if you can't take the mountain on, without oxygen, well, that's tough. using oxygen is cheating. mind you, it's not easy even with it. imagine if that failed and you weren't even ready for 14-20k feet? eek.

i seem to recall, that a sherpa solo climbed the mountain, stayed *overnite* in a tent on the top, and came down. no oxygen cylinders. that's pure.

i feel bad for everyone involved. if you haven't read "into thin air", i suggest it. i then suggest listening to the *author* read his own book. the tone in his voice, the horror, the remorse... i'll never try it. i MIGHT visit base camp, some day, just to peer up at the big beast. i have a friend that spent a week doing that. she said even that was exhausting. actually, given the expense, and time - it takes forever to get there - like, really, forever... forget it. antartica is ... accessible - one wrong move though and dead fast.

take the risk you feel you can.

bladite
 
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question.

We've been over a number of facts here. I've considered both sides of the issue, and I'm really not seeing how the other climbers are monsters. (Or how that this implies that the rest of humanity has gone down the crapper. This may be true, but I fail to see the connection.)

I tend to be pretty good at seeing the other side's point of view -- that's why I often end up as the devil's advocate around here. I'm just not seeing it this time. What am I missing?

Guy tried Everest twice and failed. Guy tries it third time (without adequate preparation) and gets in trouble. Other climbers pass him. At least one calls for help. Climbers can't help. Rescue isn't possible. Climbers plod on. Guy dies.

And what? They couldn't carry him down. They could have shared oxygen...until theirs ran out, anyway, and then he would've died anyway. They could have called for help, which they did. What else could they have done?*

* Do not say, "Carry him down." They could not have.
* Do not say, "Give him oxygen." This would have bought him minutes or hours, and when it ran low and the climbers descended, he still would've died. (And people would still be criticizing them for not doing enough.)
* Do not say, "Sit with him until he died." I will try like hell to drag an injured person out of a burning house, but I refuse to sit with them to make their passing more comfortable while the house is still burning. There is a time limit on Everest, folks, and you don't know when that bell will ring.
* Do not say, "Go get help." They called for help via radio, which was faster. We know how that turned out.

If there are any other workable ideas, I would like to hear them. Pontificating about the morality of one's actions is interesting but it hardly solves the problem...and we can all agree that this will probably happen again eventually. So, how should it be handled next time?

Specifics, please.
 
Dave Rishar said:
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question.


* Do not say, "Carry him down." They could not have.

Specifics, please.
Click to expand...

That is still TBD. We do not know where he was relative to camp IV, nor the precise timeline of events. Early on he wasn't just laying there; he had been seen in trouble but trying to climb down. Often, an injured climber can be helped. A snow blinded climber (one guy went blind when his lasex procedure reacted to the environment), can be led down, a tired or injured climber can be lowered over a technical part of the climb and perhaps still hike down the rest of it; people have been known to get lost and die within a few dozen yards of base camp.

The presumption should be that they should have helped; and, it is up to them to justify their behavior.

n2s
 
This does not involve climbing, but once I was swiming in heavy surf, real big, and another swimmer near me called for help. I swam up near him and was tired. The waves were beating me up and I was really tired when I got near him. He went under, then came up, and I began waving my arms to get the lifegaurds on shore to swim out. I did NOT swim over to him and try to help him. I was in some trouble myself and had already sucked in some water. We got separated by a couple of wave and the lifeguards got to him and pulled him out. Later, and still now, I have weird feelings about the incident. In some ways I justify what I did to myself and at other times I question what I did as selfish and not brave.
I just wonder in some ways if something like that could have occurred on Everest that day. You always want to do the right thing, but somethimes, you put yourself, and your team, ahead of your fellow man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top