World News

If it somehow guaranteed your success it would be safer to play a round of russian roulette at the base camp before you begin your climb as that has only one in six chance of killing you. That's how crazy your odds of success on the climb sound like.
Yet they all know the statistics and the risks, and go do it anyway. Are they mental, suicidal, or do they truly believe they are so awesome and everyone who died clearly was their inferior?

Yeah I don’t understand the clamour. This sort of situation has happened many, many times. I remember reading about a guy dying in a cave near the Everest summit. Other climbers sat with him and shared water, comfort, but from that location, if he couldn’t move on his own, there was no way he was getting down. Also the numerous “landmark” bodies that the climbers pass right off the trail… there’s no safe way to remove them.

I think people assume that you can just carry someone out on a stretcher or arrange a helicopter—but people are literally operating on bleeding edge of oxygenation and helicopters can’t get up their for the same reasons… you aren’t going to be able to remove an incapacitated person who needs total physical support from others to move.

You could say, well it’s fucked up that people are paid to support these climbs, because they need the money, and there’s some validity to that, but in that case it’s not that different from something like deep sea welding or being in a combat unit of a military, etc.

One in four climbers on K2 does not make it back.

This is a very misleading statement and the stats just don't back you up.

Look at the number of people on K2 in the pictures and video taken on the day in question. Yet only one person died.

You are confusing climbing with summiting and you are including numbers from the 1930s.

I can't remember if it was a documentary or a book where there was a jam getting to the summit of everest because basically the people in front of the line were struggling to keep walking up. The expert mountaineer said, paraphrasing : Out of shape, under prepared, whatever the cause, every minute not moving at pace means someone behind them is more likely to die. He explained they were a moving road block and gave them a 50/50 chance to make it down, IF they had paid for help. He decided 30 minutes later to give up his ascent and telling guides and others on the way down that there people struggling and to turn back. At that elevation, walking is a struggle even with oxygen. Helping someone out whether by giving them your oxygen or helping them down could mean both die. I personally wouldn't do it, but I hope whatever people go up the mountain know exactly that, if they can't carry their own weight, they'll be left to die.

but on the other hand, this is completely unnecessary.

Everyone should have the freedom to be the architect of their own fortune or misfortune.

I don't pretend to know why they do it, but as long as everyone is doing it willingly and know the risk, I don't have a problem with it.

I'm not sure what more to expect from these people. They arent breaking new ground, they arent contributing to science and exploration, they are just trying to get their "world record" for their own selfish reasons. They absolutely would step over a westerner if it it's corpse stood in their way.They use the bodies as milestones...

I'm not gonna stop them trying, but I'm certainly not impressed with their "achievement". I do feel bad for the sherpa, who is just trying to feed his family. Hopefully more of them realise that their lives are not worth the risk.

Well there was a similar incident a few years ago on Mt Everest involving a western climber who also died: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sharp_(mountaineer)

I don't think he was a sherpa, but your point stands.

There's something to be said for doing it yourself. The issue comes in when other people are required for you to make that achievement happen.

Don't get me wrong, both sides of the argument have their merit. On one hand, these people are adults and they agree to go. On the other, would they agree to go at all if they were financially well off themselves?

Unfortunately the fediverse is very appealing to doomers and people who are jealous of those who have more than them. you can see how some of them call for the assassination of wealthy people in other threads.

Serious question? If so, I'm guessing that the simple answer is people spending a lot of money on very selfish and otherwise meaningless endeavors, which occasionally results in accidents that get a disproportionate amount of attention and vested interest by media. Something along those lines.