Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 135 posts

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#71

Post by jdietrich »

ryannevius wrote: post #25

It's unfortunate that world-class alpinists such as Kilian Jornet -- who recently summited Everest solo, in 26 hours, without supplemental oxygen, after training his ass off for years [1] -- won't be able to attempt such a challenge again (unless I'm missing something). There has to be a better solution to the problem mentioned in the article. [1] https://www.outsideonline.com/2187266/kilian-jornet-summits-...

Racing drivers don't get kudos for racing without a helmet or a seat belt - nobody would let them race and they'd be seen as moronic for even suggesting the idea.

Nepal have every right to ban people from doing pointless, stupid things on their mountain. Jornet's good friend Ueli Steck died earlier this year. He was solo climbing Nuptse without fixed protection, supplemental oxygen or even ice axes. If Jornet has not learned from this senseless tragedy, then Nepal has no obligation to entertain him.

If you want to kill yourself, do it at sea level.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#72

Post by vidarh »

matt-attack wrote: post #63
harigov wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. My point is that some people don't think about the consequences of what they are asking for, unless prompted for it, and they usually have ideas that are contradictory. Of course, your point still stands and I agree alternatives should be considered as well. However, I am still in support of forcing people to go in groups because it is safer. I don't have data, but I do believe from experience that there…

Regarding people not thinking about the consequences, I’d say that mistake typically falls in lawmakers. Lawmaker: “hmm, motorcyclists without helmets put too much of a financial burden on hospitals, so let’s outlaw helmetless riding.” Instead of infringing on civil liberties why not target the problem at hand? Mandate specific insurance, or self-insurance, etc. in order to ride in that manner. Same could be said her…

I'm not sure I agree with respect to things like helmetless riding - I've not quite made my mind up. But I'd suggest that one thing that ought to be done with all law is that the law ought to specify "acceptance criteria" that specify what the law is setting out to fix, and courts ought to be able to set aside laws if they can be proven to not meet the stated goal, and interpret them more narrowly if they can be shown to not be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal.

I think that would be a giant step towards more focused laws, and certainly towards more honestly worded laws, and in many cases it may well be that this would lead a court to direct the legislative to find a different solution or risk having the law struck down.

A large problem with overly broad laws today is simply that legislatives can get away with passing poorly thought out laws and misleading laws because there is no real consequence to it: the judicial system is forced to try to make the best of it if the laws are ridiculous or over-broad, and can't even go "hold on, this law is saying something completely different than what you pretended it was for when you convinced people to vote for it".

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#73

Post by schoen »

vidarh wrote: post #69
sandworm101 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't blame the mountain. It isn't dangerous anymore, not like it once was. Modern climbing is extraordinarily safe. We now have gear that we can actually trust. Ropes are now basically magic. But more importantly, modern communications and weather forecasting mean climbers no longer need step into the void . Dangers that were once total unknowns are now calculable. It is much easier to be bold when you know wha…

Part of the issue is that people seek out risk. If something is made safer, people will not go "great, no we're not taking any risks" - they will seek out something riskier. Peoples individual risk tolerance varies, but we all tend to have a tendency to see a reduced risk as a reason to push things further. This gives rise to the situation where if we make changes that are perceived as adding more safety than it actu…

In behavioral economics, this phenomenon is sometimes called "risk compensation".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#74

Post by mikeash »

amorphid wrote: post #38
harigov wrote: post #2

As someone with some mountaineering experience in North America, I am really surprised to hear that they ever allowed this in the first place. Of course, one could argue that govt shouldn't have any power over what an individual can do, but the same people who argue for that liberty also ask govt to go search when someone goes missing in the mountains. And you can only search for so many people. I think it is reasona…

> Of course, one could argue that govt shouldn't have any power over what an individual can do If I were in charge (I never will be), my first inclination would be to not restrict high risk climbing. But then I wouldn't be able to shake the feeling that a hands off approach would be that simple. I'd want to understand the drawbacks of people dying on the mountain. I'd be concerned with being responsible for rescue co…

I’d say, let them climb how they want, but mandate full insurance coverage for any needed evacuation, medical treatment, and corpse removal. As long as people don’t litter or pass costs along to others, the rest could be up to them.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#75

Post by justinator »

bunderbunder wrote: post #67
justinator wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jornet isn't just some random wahoo. He's won pretty much every major ultra trail race there is, has an unparalleled race ski mountaineering career, and FKTs on other major Seven Summits, including Denali. He's an outlier''s outlier. What then, does he need to prove? What would the reason be for him to lie?

> What would the reason be for him to lie? Just taking a wild stab at it, avoiding embarrassment and maintaining his reputation. I know literally nothing about him, but I presume he's every bit as human as the rest of us. I'm absolutely not trying to weigh in either way - again, I know literally nothing about him. But also I don't think past accomplishment can be used as such handy proof of subsequent accomplishments…

> Just taking a wild stab at it, avoiding embarrassment and maintaining his reputation.

He's failed many times on the, "Summits of My Life" peaks. It's Alpinism! Failure is part of the game. This wasn't even his first time trying Everest. He's clearly not an egotistical guy.

> but I presume he's every bit as human as the rest of us.

I'd do some research, well worth it. They guy isn't human.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#76

Post by justinator »

paulcole wrote: post #64
justinator wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jornet isn't just some random wahoo. He's won pretty much every major ultra trail race there is, has an unparalleled race ski mountaineering career, and FKTs on other major Seven Summits, including Denali. He's an outlier''s outlier. What then, does he need to prove? What would the reason be for him to lie?

>What then, does he need to prove? That he has been to the summit. Just for the sake of argument, the reason is pretty obvious: sponsor pressure. You think Salomon is ponying up for him to get to 28,500 and then turn back? Also, didn’t Kilian get DQed for cutting switchbacks in a race after being told repeatedly to knock it off? I know he’s a beast and GOAT but he’s still human.

> the reason is pretty obvious: sponsor pressure. You think Salomon is ponying up for him to get to 28,500 and then turn back?

The guy is a living legend in his 20's. He's already failed on Everest before, in 2016. What pressure do you think Salomon has on Jornet? Salomon is a 700 million dollar a year in revenue company, whose parent company has yearly revenue in the billions. They got the scratch and Jornet is Salomon's top athlete, no question about it. I don't even think Salomon was the sole, or even main sponsor. His blog lists Mercedes Benz a b.s. luxury brand that seems to be what's needed as the catalyst for large expeditions into the Himalayas that has nothing to do with mountaineering.

The big money in sponsorship (as an athlete) is in racing, not mountaineering. But Jornet has literally won every race there is to win! Salomon is sponsoring Jornet even though he doesn't do what a sponsors runner is supposed to do - because he's his own weather system of getting eyeballs interested in the brands that sponsor him - he doesn't need UTMB, or any other ultra race anymore. He can compete in them for fun, when he wants to.

Take it from me, there's little if no money in setting FKTs, and only the Jornet's of the world could pull it off. His sponsors aren't pushing for him to do this stuff, he's telling his sponsors what he's doing, the sponsors put up the hype, and they all make a lot of money.

> Also, didn’t Kilian get DQed for cutting switchbacks in a race after being told repeatedly to knock it off?

No, he was not disqualified:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyRew7lr5eE

There's little to no money in being a professional ultra runner. A little little better in Europe, but the only dude I know that makes a living as a pro ultra runner is so injured, he can't even run. It honestly doesn't matter: he has a huge social media following, and he gets people excited for the brand. He makes a living not running (he doesn't coach, he doesn't put on his own race, nothing). He makes pennies to Jornet's dollars.

Believe me, Jornet's doing fine, and wouldn't need to fake a summit bid. Remember too, he summited twice in that one trip.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#77

Post by sytelus »

sandworm101 wrote: post #55
cyberferret wrote: post #3

I can understand a persons willingness to 'push the envelope' and stretch themselves to reach their goals, but I am always mystified by the seeming lack of understanding by those who try and tackle Everest when they are not at peak climbing ability. In almost every case, it is the local Sherpas who will have to then risk their own lives to undertake a rescue or recovery operation if you don't make it. Plus, I would h…

I wouldn't blame the mountain. It isn't dangerous anymore, not like it once was. Modern climbing is extraordinarily safe. We now have gear that we can actually trust. Ropes are now basically magic. But more importantly, modern communications and weather forecasting mean climbers no longer need step into the void . Dangers that were once total unknowns are now calculable. It is much easier to be bold when you know wha…

Mountaineering above 6000m is never extraordinarily safe. During past 5 years death rate on Everest is 3.4%. That's pretty high if you ask me. If you were sitting in a bus full of climbers, one of them wasn't going back home. Sure, there is always a lot of stupidity but pretty much its just nature. No one is still able to predict weather perfectly, no one can tell who is going to get AMS and people even sitting on basecamp can just die because of avalanche.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#78

Post by Fricken »

gtirloni wrote: post #11
sgregnt wrote: post #9

Why not sell individual permits and make it so expansive that it covers the rescue?

It's hard to put a price on the certain lives of rescuers that will be lost (given enough rescue missions).

Who would even put a price on the cost of a human life? If you don't want to rescue someone on Mount Everest then help out a child in Yemen. They didn't even choose to put themselves in harm's way

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#79

Post by Fricken »

basicplus2 wrote: post #4

Why ban solo climbing? If an idiot wants to do something stupid, why interfere with natural selection? And why waste money looking for them?

Why do you call them idiots? Is it because you're a coward, or someone stupid enough to believe death is something that can be avoided?

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#80

Post by grahamannett »

throwaway30yo wrote: post #18
gtirloni wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to put a price on the certain lives of rescuers that will be lost (given enough rescue missions).

Its not that hard to put a price on it. As an avid mountaineer, I would attempt a rescue for a cool 10M USD.

Curious of extent to what climbing have you done and what extent of alpinism you have been around if you think price is the right way to gauge a rescue attempt? Im a climber myself and while not really interested in alpinism I know quite certainly that most rescue attempts aren't prevented or attempted because of monetary reasons. Alpinist (http://www.alpinist.com/newswire/) probably has at least a story or two a year of rescue attempts on a variety of places less 'dangerous' than himilayas that are well funded that result in nothing or sometimes pilot/guide deaths.
Post reply on HN