I should point out that climbing Everest at this point is pretty trivial compared to what it was when the old masters set out to do it. A friend of mine did it and said it wasn't as difficult as he'd expected. The path is well trodden and known. Forecasts are much better than they used to be. Gear is very light and durable. You often have a team of helpers to carry your gear, guide you, make your food etc. Whereas back then, which is the way we know / think it to be, it was a gamble on your life at best.
Many more than that number come back down being carried by their friends, with lungs full of fluid, brain damage, black fingers/toes/hands/feet/noses which need to be amputated, or other serious injuries.
A fantastic read is "Into Thin Air" by Jon Krakauer, which covers a really bad year for climbing on Everest.
The article above links to the page for Annapurna, one of the deadliest mountains on earth (40% fatality rate for climbers), which said this:
The second summit team, Alison Chadwick-Onyszkiewicz and Vera Watson, died during this climb. (Vera Watson was survived by her husband, the computer scientist John McCarthy.)[5]
Dangerous doesn't mean hard and easy doesn't mean safe. As long you are among the lucky group who don't run into problems then it's quite an easy climb (relatively speaking)
"Into thin Air" showed how easy it can be if everything goes well. He talks about people who were out of shape making it. But if one or two things go wrong, you're dead.
My only knowledge of Everest is watching some programs on Discovery, but one thing I notice in everyone of them is the sheer traffic at the top. It appears to have prevented several people from summiting even though they are just a couple hundred yards away. That is one thing the masters probably didn't have to deal with.
People still die climbing the Everest. Just last year there was a team where at least two teammembers died, and one made it back with a severe case of frostbite who now has to live without his toes.
[edit]My bad, that was not Mt. Everest, that was an expedition on K2.[/edit]
The problem is, he's not just risking his own life. Everest is climbed often enough that he's risking the lives of others, too. If he is near another climbing party and something goes wrong, he could block the route, create an obstacle, trigger an icefall, or otherwise endanger them. Granted, he's climbing the less-crowded north route, but it's still a potential difficulty.
Regarding risk and climbing, I recently watched the video Committed, Volume II, which has a segment on the Whittaker family, who live in England. Katy and Pete, both young teens when the video was made, were cutting their teeth on the nervy, often dangerous gritstone routes in England. It's fascinating watching their parents belay them on their leads of these dangerous routes, and listening to their attitude toward being parents in these situations. Trailer for the video is here:
As to the comments about the dangers on Everest--most routes are non-technical, but heading up any mountain is a gamble, given weather and snow conditions.
You're correct, it's not going to benefit humanity substantially. Climbing Everest is a huge physical and mental feat and can only bring personal satisfaction or inspire others. Spending all of your time trying to do something to benefit humanity is exhausting - you must take time off for yourself and live a balanced life.
I would love to climb Everest someday and experience that euphoric moment most mountaineers do when they reach the summit. I feel like life (and happiness in general) is about experiences like this...at least mine is.
If you think repeating "wwiisoodkfhjsuuuggg" will bring you satisfaction then go for it!
I am just not convinced that gambling away one's life is the right approach to work-life balance :-)
There are countless other breathtaking things to do and see that are less dangerous. But I don't want to judge it - I simply can not relate.
Maybe one thing could be said for the kid, that he is "hacking" a loophole in society to finance his mountaineering ambitions, namely a fascination with records and young age. Is it a coincidence that at the moment several kids are trying to break the record for being the youngest person to sail around the world? He is now at a unique position to get financing for his project, which would not be possible at a later time of his life.
So if it really is just about seeing stunning mountain scenery and finding the money for it, maybe I can relate a little bit.
I'd rather be the youngest person ever who finds the cure for seven types of cancer or whatever...
I definitely see what you mean. I think I relate to it because I have a desire to break away from the monotony of the corporate world. It all depends on the circumstances you're in and what your own personal goals are.
What does humanity gain from keeping him in school "learning about dangling participles", as he put it?
If you can even frame justifying his existence in terms of what humanity gains from it, then still encouraging him to do whatever he can is good as long as it's something challenging and positive and not just dropping out.
Many people on HN would feel fulfilled if they started a successful startup... he gets his fulfillment from climbing mountains. I also think there’s something to be said about him inspiring other kids (and adults!) to achieve their dreams.
A successful startup implies changing the world for the better, whereas this record will provide entertainment for a couple of minutes at best.
But I don't want to judge it, it is just my personal opinion that it is a waste. I feel the same about other types of sports (ie Olympics). The one positive aspect I could see in it if sports people were experimenting with their health and others could benefit from what they learn. Ie the best diets, most efficient ways to train and so on. If they figure out how I can get by with 30 minutes of sport instead of 1 hour for the same effect on health, that is 30 minutes more that can be invested in startups and curing cancer. So I suppose it would benefit sports if drugs were legalized.
And of course the mental discipline aspect, being able to achieve whatever you set your mind on. But that seems just like "pumping up" before doing the real thing (something worthwhile). Risking one's life seems very inefficient for training up the courage to do something real.
Isabelle Stengers and Dider Gille write in 'Body Fluids'
"What will we say to those who ignore advice and continue to make contacts known to be at risk? Will we treat them as irresponsible, to be lectured to, put under observation, and converted? In that case, our future scenario is assured: that of the child in the glass bubble, for whom the outside environment means death; that of the obsessional struggle against all unmonitored contact as potentially the source of death."
While they are here writing of 'safer sex' discourse, but I think their reminder that our bodies are necessarily exposed to danger. There may be, after all, fates worse than death and perhaps the over-sheltered, over-mediated life (one thinks of Huxley's Brave New World) comes about when all we do is think of the children.
Everest, at >29,000 feet, is something like 30% higher than the highest he's climbed -- Aconcagua, at just under 23,000 feet -- and people die from altitude on Aconcagua every year. The 8000m peaks are a whole 'nother ball game.
