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

81–90 of 135 posts

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#81

Post by grahamannett »

WalterBright wrote: post #16
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).

Just tell the climbers in advance they will not mount rescue missions for people who do not meet a minimum threshold of competence and preparation.

they already do this. theres a huge amount of luck that factors into a summit for a ton of climbs. they spend weeks just acclimating let alone the amount of preparation prior to their climbs (and the fact that people who want to just pay to summit are not physically capable or even allowed up, theres actual physical confrontations by guides to head back more often than you'd think).

theres a reason people are left for dead and walk back to camps in the middle of the night (beck weathers is the de facto example) and its because they are so incredibly competent and prepared that they are able to survive but at extreme costs to themselves and those around

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#82

Post by sideshowb »

Fricken wrote: post #78
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).

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

Health economists. It's their job

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#83

Post by deepGem »

jdietrich wrote: post #71
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…

The racing analogy might have some flaws. Seat belts and helmets are for protection, they don't aid you in driving. Ice axes and supplemental oxygen aid you in climbing. You could very well climb without them. They are not safety devices. Seat belt is by definition a safety device which will save your life in case of a high speed accident. I think the only seat belt equivalent is the climbing rope.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#84

Post by grahamannett »

hprotagonist wrote: post #37
bhickey wrote: post #21

I'd rather see Nepal ban fixed ropes and yank the ladder off the Hillary Step, but that'd kill the whole industry.

i’m with you. No serious alpinists do much of anything on everest these days, and it’s hard to do a rational cost/benefit for the fees of well-heeled tourists versus the rights of the sherpas and the state of the mountain.

im always curious where the notion that 'everest is the worlds highest stair stepper' comes from. everyone i know whos a serious alpinist still holds it in pretty high regards for any number of reasons.

which serious alpinists no longer do much on everest? of course its not a climb for mountaineers trying to put up a new route/make news due to the fact its the most climbed 8ker but i can think of 3 big names still guiding it regularly and conrad anker who may be the "most famous" mountaineer summited in 2012 according to his wiki. i could see honnold trying to summit everest in the next few years as well.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#85

Post by grahamannett »

throwawaylalala wrote: post #49
paulcole wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did he start on the Nepalese or Chinese side? I haven’t seen this mentioned in any articles about him.

They discuss base camp a lot, so I believe it was Nepal. Certainly it could be China, but I think they would have highlighted that. Also, he did it without fixed ropes.

http://www.alpinist.com/doc/web17s/newswire-kilian-jornet-ma...

north col is tibet

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#86

Post by akkat »

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…

How about forcing them to leave some money as collateral or forcing climbers to get insurance like with scuba divers?

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#87

Post by macspoofing »

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-...

The world can do just fine without solo Everest climbers.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#88

Post by dilyevsky »

bhickey wrote: post #21

I'd rather see Nepal ban fixed ropes and yank the ladder off the Hillary Step, but that'd kill the whole industry.

the ladder is on chinese side. but yeah, solo climbers probably won't support nepalese family of 5 with a single climb so in the face of falling revenues from disastrous last couple years they just banned it.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#89

Post by golergka »

sytelus wrote: post #77
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…

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 ba…

Parent comment logic is "since we have better and safer equipment, people are making more dangerous choices" - statistics can't show it to be false, as this death rate can be explained in this logic as said dangerous choices, not the mountaineering itself.

Re: Nepal bans solo climbers from Mount Everest

#90

Post by golergka »

fergie wrote: post #57

If you haven't read them already, I really recommend the following two books: "Into Thin Air" by John Krakauer was the first book to critically explore the "Death Zone" and the state of mountaineering on Everest generally- It was written in 1997, but is just as relevant now. "Dark Shadows Falling" by Joe Simpson is another commentary on the state of mountaineering on Everest in 1997. Simpson was famously left for dea…

> he brings a keen insight into the morals of high-altitude climbing from the point of view of the "one that was left behind"

I got curious and read a wikipedia article about the book; from the summary, I don't see any special "morals" about the incident: one mountaineer had a reason to believe another one dead and saved himself, without knowingly leaving anyone behind. Is wikipedia summary incorrect?

Post reply on HN