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

Svashtar said:
[...]The Golden Rule applies, period. [...]

Well, if I understand this correctly, you'd like to be safed if you where in the same situation, right?

The way I understand the Golden Rule - I wouldn't like others to risk their lives by being unprepared, expect me to help them and risk my life too. That is also part of the Golden Rule, isn't it?


Johngalt, you did the best you could do. If you'd gotten near him, he'd drag you down. Lifeguards have trouble with this even when they're not exhausted, getting closer to a drowing man when you're on the edge yourself likely would've killed both of you.
Apart from that, water can be scary, that much I know. When you're afraid of drowing, your perspective really changes a bit. Save yourself, then help others. It doesn't do any good if two people die. Been there, and made the right decision. Got both of us out of the water. I dont know what would've happend if I hadn't gotten my ass on the rocks first.

Keno
Click to expand...
 
I might be old fashion but my personal vieuw is that you leave "no one behind". I have been in a few situations where i needed to risk my own life to resque a collegue that was in trouble. I never had second thoughts about what i did, and only afterwards realised the danger involved. Now the strange thing is that i expect the same from those people when i would be in danger.
I can not believe that soldiers left someone behind in a ******* running test. If someone is down, you pick him up and take him with you, even if it's his own fault, and he is an idiot.
If i was the CO and found out someone was left behind during and excercise let alone combat i would have them all disciplined.

The value of a man/woman is still more then a running test, or any mountain.
 
As usual, munk had it right!
We are all here tonight.
The Righteous,
The Reasonable,
The Reactionary
The Wankers
What a great forum this is!!
I've been thinking this issue over. It's not as clear cut as we make it out to be...Dave R.
Click to expand...
 
I have said this before on this thread, and I'll say it again because it doesn't seem like anyone is listening.
The world is how it is.
It would be nice if people cared about each other
It would be nice if people would risk their own life for each other
It IS nice when these things happen
BUT.....
it is totally unreasonable to EXPECT these things to happen.
The ONLY thing you can EXPECT is that YOU are responsible for YOURSELF.
If someone helps you, for whatever reason, that is great and should be appreciated. Just don't expect it, or think it is your due, because it is not.
If you choose to put your life in danger to climb a mountain, get in the ring, hunt dangerous game, etc. etc. then that is your decision. It would be nice if you had someone you could trust to help you, but if you find out later that you can't trust anyone because they let you down, well that is too bad for you. You are responsible for your own welfare, not "the team" or "your buddies" or even "your family". Knowing this, choose wisely what you will do and who you will trust.
 
Thanks. I know it sounds cold, but it is actually refreshing to see reality instead of what you expect to see, or want to see.
 
Hi The Shadow-

We're in 100% agreement. Life is difficult and it should be viewed as a welcomed "bonus" when someone comes along to help shoulder the burden. The harsh reality is that deceased climber should have understood he was doomed when he was only partially up the mountain and was out of oxygen.

If someone chooses to walk across an expanse of arid desert with only a gallon of water we shouldn't expect the next traveler be compelled to carry his stricken and thirsty body to the next oasis. Climbing that mountain is just a monumental an undertaking. I'm glad we both recognize that.

~ Blue Jays ~
 
I'm not a climber, but I am a sailor.

If a boat sends out an SOS, unless you're going down yourself, you respond. If a crewmember is swept overboard, you reduce sail and retrace your course, trying to find him. FWIW, one of the boats on the Volvo Round the World Race did this two weeks or so ago - essentially ditching the race on their last leg home, to try and rescue a crewman. He died of hypothermia BTW, in conditions with 5 meter seas, and 35-40 knot winds. Not hurricane force, but certainly the expected kind of nasty weather that can make screw-ups fatal.

Rather like what we've been told about the conditions on Everest that day.

I simply don't believe that the 40 climbers who had to step over or around the body of the man would have put themselves in any more peril than the Volvo Ocean Racers did. Between them all and the guides who gave them support, there surely would have been a spare oxygen canister or two, a couple of ropes to jury-rig a safety harness for the man (one of the first things offshore sailors learn), and pitons etc. to make safe points to use to slide him down the mountain to camp IV. If the folks who passed him had any business being on Everest at all, they would have had rather comprehensive first-aid training, and significant expertise in climbing. This was not rocket science, though it was surely very difficult.

It would have required them to forego their own dream at least that day - stepping on their own egos a bit. And a life - even the life of a stupid man - is worth that.

As to the "the world is like that - let's face reality" argument? The physical world is harsh and cruel - but humans have a choice. Our society is as cruel and harsh as we ourselves make it, though the sum of our collective actions and choices.

t.
 
munk said:
For heavens sakes- I'm not going hiking with Rishar or Broken H. If 14000 feet bothers you, you weren't properly acclimated beforehand.
munk
Click to expand...

Sorry to bump this old comment, but there is something here that bears pointing out. I've been out of pocket and not really keeping up.

Munk -- you are absolutely right: going from sea level to 14k is going to mess with you horribly, no matter what kind of shape you were in at sea level. I knew that going into it, and gave myself a few days to "acclimate."

That was a 14er.. 14,000 feet CAN be acclimated for. 29,000 cannot. Not by someone who has lived within "normal" altitudes their whole lives. Period. That's why they carry oxygen.

:)

That retort was out of character for you, too, by the way. You okay?
 
That retort was out of character for you, too, by the way. You okay?>>>>>>>>> Broken H.

I'm glad you brought it up- it's irritated the back of my mind. I did not intend the comment to be harsh- it's just I know something about that- as do you.
The hike to Everest is supposed to take care of that- the acclimation to higher elevations. For the US hiker, it is usually written in Park and Forest service literature to camp several days at mid altitude before attempting to climb to your 14000 peaks. I dont know if they still print that- altitude sickness; wasn't that what they worried the once a year climber would get?

I used to enjoy high altitudes. I once had to carry my own and a friends packs when we reached 10500 feet.

I get gleeful at high altitude. I like it. I think it's because I'm demented already and above tree line just confirms it. Anyway, there's a special feeling imparted in the mountains I love. You know what I mean.


munk
 
I simply don't believe that the 40 climbers who had to step over or around the body of the man would have put themselves in any more peril than the Volvo Ocean Racers did. Between them all and the guides who gave them support, there surely would have been a spare oxygen canister or two, a couple of ropes to jury-rig a safety harness for the man (one of the first things offshore sailors learn), and pitons etc. to make safe points to use to slide him down the mountain to camp IV. If the folks who passed him had any business being on Everest at all, they would have had rather comprehensive first-aid training, and significant expertise in climbing. >>>>>>> Tom Fetter

Despite all the respect I have for my friend Dave Rishar, I'm not interested in any list of criteria he or any of us could devise to counter his argument that it was impossible to rescue the climber. That is best left for experts, and the experts are ashamed; there is reason for that shame, because they suspect something could have been done. Among 40 climbers there were enough people and materials. Being able to sway Dave, or not sway Dave, has nothing to do with Everest, any more than my asking a Nuclear Physicist 'how those rods work' has to do with power supplied to Southern Calif.

Tell you what- if after all this, the 'experts' get together and decide Sharp's death was unavoidable, (and I might suspect a PR coverup) I'll laugh the loudest- at myself and just us people.


munk
 
Tom says:
As to the "the world is like that - let's face reality" argument? The physical world is harsh and cruel - but humans have a choice. Our society is as cruel and harsh as we ourselves make it, though the sum of our collective actions and choices.

TheShadow says;
I really agree, we have a choice, and I could not have chosen to walk over the climber and leave him to die. But, my point is not that what they did was right, good, or noble but that what they did was understandable. Many people do not think of anyone but themselves, and it just does not help to get upset with them about it because they will not change. It helps me to realize that and take responsibility for myself. That's all. I wish everyone made the "right" choices all the time, but they do not and will not.
 
Smoke for Dave Sharp.
He died doing what he loved...

Brent


Or at least he died doing, which is a lot.



munk
 
Very interesting thread. After several days of thinking about this, I have determined that I would have felt guilty if someone would have died trying to rescue me because I was ill prepared for the task. But it does pose a very interesting question on the value of life?

A very interesting book to read on Mt. Everest is "Touching My Father's Soul" by Jamling Tenzing Norgay. He is the son of the sherpa that went up with Hilary. The story is of his journey as the guide for the IMAX crew that filmed the ascent. Excellent book that touches on some of these dilemna's faced here in this thread.
 
I think this thread is what HI forum used to do more often, and is doing again. Hooray!


munk
 
I blame Canada.

They're not even a real country anyway.

LOL.

Don't flame me dammit its a song.
 
I really think that saving a life is more important then climbing to the top. It only takes at most 1 week to reach the top. But it takes many 10s of years to grow a man.
 
No matter what anyone says, people keep repeating the same blind statment of "i cant believe they walked past him, why didnt they help"

Go and read any of the now hundreds of articles on this story. Most now account that the guy was in varying stages of death that day, and the group that stopped said he could not stand or move any of his limbs and could just move his eyes at that point.

The point about them not taking any more risk than the boat racers is not even comparable. Those boat racers were not in an environment where 3-5 minutes of exposure would cause instant death.

This guy was 1,000 feet shy of the summit, basically immobile and half frozen solid. The group has now stated again and again that the decision was to press onward because to stop for any extended period would have severly risked the lives of the entire group.

While i feel the same human compassion, i dont think its nearly as simple as throwing a huge blanketed moral compass on their decision. I think at this point its an agree to disagree situation. many here are presenting the situation in such a way that they lead me to belive they would lower their families into a flaming volcano to save a guy who was burned beyond hope already....i think people need to take a cold, hard look at the situation and put yourself in a leadership position. If you had a group of people whom you were responsible for, would you risk every single one of their lives, knowing that there was a measurable and almost certain chance one or more would die, only to give an already dying man a few more moments of peace (if you can even say he was congant enough to recieve it?)? Would you be able to sleep easier knowing you effectively caused the deaths of ten to try to save one who you beleived beyond saving? If you say that you'd be willing to make that sacrifice, you should never be a leader of men....these are cold, hard, survival choices made on the spot under extremes we can only slightly begin to imagine, and it bothers me that the people who have to live with that cold hard reality are being attacked by hoardes of people caliming they should have done more, but have no solutions and no answers as to what more they could have done other than joined him in his fate.

Call me cold, or uncompassionate, but i would have stopped, asessed the situation, and most likely kept walking. There is a point where being a hero is being foolish, and risking many lives to save one just does not weigh out. Sometimes compassion is making hard choices. People die on that mountain 20 feet from their tent, unable to make it that last 20 feet. Most cannot even drag their own weight down, and most deaths are on the descent, as mr sharp's was. Gear is at a minimum to make the best attempt, and i find it hard to beleive that anyone here would have accepted nearly certain death to drag what they saw as a lost cause down a decent that they were already risking their lives to attempt alone....maybe some here would make that choice. History has proven again and again about those types of people. Some are heroes, pulling off the impossible due to combinations of scenarios and luck. Most who made that choice would be no more than a lump in the snow right now from every expert account I have read.

The question is would you personally, when all is said and done, rather:

One dead frozen man and 40 men who had better chances at living?
One chance at saving that one man, with the risk that a great many would have a high percentage of also dying and even if he were saved, had little chance to survive?
A few martyrs to die with him, just to prove that humans are compassionate?

Ive seen a lot of questions but not a lot of answers. Those climbers made choices and they all lived. What would you have done differently and how do you envision those different scenareios to have worked out? lets try to keep to the environment, though. So no stopping for longer than 5 minutes, no magic vending machines, no magic sources of extra oxygen, no skiing down ice cliffs, no unassisted rope work, no bursts of energy where exceptional things happen....reality. What is the reality of the alternatives, and how would YOU justify those alternatives to the widows of the men you might commit to death, to yourself?
 
As you say, Tik Tock, I think we're now at an agree to disagree stage. It's unlikely that the accounts we choose to believe, our respective concepts of leadership, or the worldviews underlying them are about to shift.

Be well.

t.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top