Sherpa: They Die, We Go Home
kristof.blogs.nytimes.com
kristof.blogs.nytimes.com
There's also a Nepalese waitress at chaat cafe in SOMA who is very chatty.
The Nepalese seem to be deeply ambivalent towards mountain climbers. The Google exec who died climbing Everest last year was a vocal supporter of the Sherpas, but even he didn't seem to be a bit blind to the nature of his hobby.
Americans want to believe there is something courageous about flying across the world to some exotic locale, and then creating an economy there around some terribly dangerous activity, which encourages the locals to risk life and limb to support.
Climbing is a hobby for a rich guy from Google. Maybe it's even spiritual. But for Sherpas it's like plumbing or driving a taxi. They do it because it provides resources they can use to support their families.
Are the Sherpas better off with the climbers? Perhaps. It's hard to say, because while climbing brings a lot of money, the Sherpas might have moved to cities, to India, or even to America if that opportunity hadn't materialized. Maybe they would have developed some marketable crafts or products? Who knows. Everest is their resource curse.
Like boxers and football players from ghettos in America, the Sherpas sacrifice their bodies for American entertainment, not because they want to, but because they have to.
What's wrong with allowing the Sherpas to make that choice, instead of us moralizers trying to make it for them? Unless I'm missing something, they still can move to cities or to India, at least to the extent they could before the advent of the Everest industry. In fact, the revenue from guiding may even help them with the costs associated with moving to America.
It's not like we intentionally keep Sherpas in the dark about the dangers they face. I also don't think it's the case that the rise of the Sherpa business destroyed other less dangerous jobs in the area, although I'm willing to be proven wrong.
> Like boxers and football players from ghettos in America, the Sherpas sacrifice their bodies for American entertainment, not because they want to, but because they have to.
I would wager there are many boxers out there who disagree.
The parent comment wasn't suggesting that they shouldn't. Doesn't mean we can't discuss our own opinions on the matter.
A boxer would say YDKSAB.
First of all, keep in mind that many of the alternatives - like going to build the 2022 World Cup stadium in Qatar - are also dangerous. Even the safe ones involve spending your life in a foreign country away from your family (often including your wife and kids), & having to learn a completely new language. For a lot of Sherpas, that's not even an option, since they're needed in their village for the crop seasons. At best, they have a set of ugly options to pick from.
Secondly, telling someone who has no financial security "I'll pay you to risk your life for me" is very different from telling someone who has money. The US military recruits heavily from the poor - and in fact that might be one of the most significant factors (http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&cont...). Is it fair that simply because someone was born into a lower standing, they have fewer options to live a safe life? The morality of that question alters drastically when you offer universal basic income.
As for moving to the US... that's also just not a possibility for 99% of Sherpas. Literacy & education rates are low, therefore so is knowledge about the visa systems (the main one they'd be eligible for is the diversity visa, which is a long-shot lottery anyway), not to mention the obvious language barrier. By design, immigration could only work out for a fraction of the population. Plus, a lot of them probably don't want to leave their family and culture behind. There's maybe 10,000 Nepalese in the US, and most of them from Kathmandu or the southern areas, which are culturally pretty different.
I have a big problem with characterizing it thusly.
The Sherpas lived and died in Nepal for thousands of years before the arrival of western adventure seekers. A people continuing to live in the same manner as their ancestors isn't the worst thing in the world, especially if that's what those people want.
We can best raise standards of living for people around the world by engaging in trade with them. We bring a lot of western problems, like obesity and heart disease but we also bring western solutions, like medical care and abundant food sources.
The morality of that question alters drastically when you offer universal basic income.
If there's a morality question with, as you describe it, offering opportunities at gunpoint; how can there not be morality questions with taking tax money from others, actually at gunpoint?
There's also the cultural imperialism that's implicit in your scenario. Why would we assume that most Nepalese want to come to the US?
If travel and trade boosts their standard of living, because of their voluntary participation, that's a good thing.
Oh, please. The 'gunpoint' in the tax system is the same 'gunpoint' in any legal dispute - you have to go through a long and tedious process before you get the deputies with guns at the door, and even then, they're not there for your tax money, but to take you into custody.
Non-taxation is also at gunpoint. Particularly in the case of land/property ownership (possibly the biggest factor in inequality), the thing that makes a wealthy person's land and buildings "theirs" is ultimately their ability to expel other people from them by force.
Ultimately you can frame anything as a negative or positive right. We as humans need to decide what sits best with our own consciences. Personally, I feel a visceral sense of injustice at the gross inequality of today's world - a sense that I don't feel when we talk about taking a fraction of the incomes of the wealthiest (provided we do so from all equally) and redistributing it to those less well off. It's possible that I'm peculiar in this regard, but I suspect not.
You own your body and can use force to prevent someone from having sex with you against your will. I wouldn't say that you're going around not having sex with random strangers at gunpoint.
We as humans need to decide what sits best with our own consciences.
I can agree with that. It's just that our consciences are different.
I feel a visceral sense of injustice at the gross inequality of today's world
It's not just today's world. There has always been inequality and injustice. It used to be far worse. You won't be thrown into debtors prison for not being able to repay the usurious loan you had no choice in accepting to feed your starving children. You won't be executed for illegally killing a deer to feed your family. You won't be worked to death on a chain gang for stealing a loaf of bread.
I think that just boils down to the statement that it's very natural and instinctively moral that you control your own body. Whereas for one individual to control huge tracts of land or buildings that could house hundreds of other people is not natural or instinctively moral.
This isn't so.
There's many choices. One is to accept a relatively high risk, for the reward of a good earning and being able to both live in your country and be nearer your family.
The last choice is to not take any job, that's true.
But the actual second choice is either to find a different job for less money, or move away for better earnings to send money home.
That couldn't possibly be less of a desecration than leaving increasing piles of dead human bodies and discarded oxygen bottles year after year.
This point is exactly why I'm ok with sweatshops. Choosing assembling piececes for an iPhone instead of receiving an education is a perfectly valid option.
They still can move to cities, to India, to America. At least, the availability of rich tourists does not stop them from doing those things. They are certainly no worse off because rich people need labor on Everest.
Yap. Nevermind, at least US is not a place you just "move to".
Is it moral for me to analyse your life of bad habits, of my own judgement, and plan a better life, also of my own judgement, for you?
I'm glad all these HN commenters recognize that these folks made an economic decision and that there are other ones possible, like moving to Delhi to be a doorman or Dubai to do construction. Now that we've gotten the obvious out of the way can we get to the interesting conversation, that of what these choices are driven by? This isn't a question of the morality of analyzing bad habits. It's like ending a conversation on heroin deaths among white rural Americans by saying that they made a choice, or saying that those girls in Nigeria kidnapped by Boko Haram made a choice by going to school. All things happen as a result of an interaction between choice and chance. To make this conversation about individual choice is to make it content-free.
The content is in what we do in response to the choices we see. The labor movement was a response to exploitation in much of the world: what's the status of the labor movement in Nepal? Many countries have made efforts to diversify their economies when one fragile industry rules: what's the status of economic diversification in Nepal? How strong is the government when it comes to enforcing labor regulations? How are people taking advantage of the tourism industry to support other aspects of Nepali culture and the economy? What causes the fact that other jobs just aren't as remunerative? What about work opportunities for women, since the guides are all men? How much of the economic structure is bound up in how health care and education are delivered, since if those are all family-based then women don't have time to engage in the global workforce? How are connections with the outside world for marketing and shipping exportable goods or commodities? Is there information asymmetry that could be ameliorated to enable the Sherpa to make better economic decisions?
Nepal could do with less, not more, interference in its affairs.
Dr Govind Pokharel, vice-chairman of Nepal's National Planning Commission, admits the system is weak and corrupt but says the huge salaries on offer in NGOs and the UN means they are causing a brain drain in Nepal's civil service. "A government guy gets $200 for a month, whereas you are paying $2,000 per month at an NGO or agency, it is damaging," he says.[5]
I hope I've answered most of your questions.
If you're interested in continuing this conversation, drop your email here and I'll email you. My girlfriend is Nepalese and at work I also work closely with a Nepalese colleague.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_royal_massacre
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Civil_War
[3] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/qa-nepal-maoists-forgo...
Please never use this argument again. It's beyond insulting.
You can read my other comments in this thread for why I think even if tourism & the climbing industry is good for Nepal right now, there are still ethical dilemmas. I also encourage you to reread kaitai's last paragraph about how this debate absolutely should not stop at an individual's choice. There's a lot that can be done, like shoring up other economies within Nepal so our citizens don't have to work in incredibly dangerous fields.
Finally, I hope you've talked to your friends about the situation for average Nepali. Villages are in positions where one bad hailstorm can cripple the village for a year, and force all the men to leave for the city or the Middle East to find work. Most villages don't receive the immediate benefits of tourism. Many are very remote, which adds a huge set of challenges - disaster response, medical aid, communication, etc. The Maoist insurgency was obviously a huge deal, as is what's going on in Madesh and Terai right now, but a lot of the other political shifts aren't felt as much, and frankly, the Nepalese government doesn't have the resources to do much. The help of NGOs and charities is vital to many villages.
Yes, it gives my argument that we can have a fruitful conversation over email, more authority and credence.
You're being offensive accusing me of using the "Friend argument".
To insist that I've used that line for my comments I made prior to my invitation for an email conversation, ignoring the context, mindlessly linking to rationalwiki, to insinuate I'm disrespectful to my partner, and a close friend I've talked to every day for half a decade, is beyond insulting. You're using rationalwiki as a tool to label people you disagree with, to win arguments without thinking, to use as a weapon. Utter stupidity.
>> Finally, I hope you've talked to your friends about the situation for average Nepali. Villages are in positions where one bad hailstorm can cripple the village for a year, and force all the men to leave for the city or the Middle East to find work. Most villages don't receive the immediate benefits of tourism. Many are very remote, which adds a huge set of challenges - disaster response, medical aid, communication, etc.
Yes, I have.
>> There's a lot that can be done, like shoring up other economies within Nepal so our citizens don't have to work in incredibly dangerous fields.
>> The help of NGOs and charities is vital to many villages.
Laissez faire has historically proven to be the only means that can shore up economies. NGO's and charities will only weaken it, because you're buying up resources in the country, reducing access to it by businesses.
So is your suggestion that we stop visiting to climb the mountain so the sherpa can no longer feed his family? You constructed the false dichotomy, so now I would like to see you argue your way out of it.
Immigrating to the middle east is the more popular option, and is probably more dangerous.
I definitely think the Sherpas are getting screwed financially, and that they should get organized to negotiate and push their rates up. Also, having their safety compromised because of inexperienced and suicidal assholes with oversized egos is something that they should not have to put up with. Over time, even with the wealth disparity, it seems like they should have the clout and be able to develop the right leadership to start asserting these things.
The Serpas lived got by for a long time before the climbers came and the people in other valleys in Nepal get by. They don't have to work climbing - they do it because it's kind of interesting and pays well. You could easily get westerners to do the Sherpa job if you offered them the same deal but you can't because you'd have to get them $20k climbing permits and probably work permits and the like and the government won't change that because it wants to keep the jobs for the locals.
Sherpas have way, way more access to America than they would if climbing did not draw so many wealthy Americans to Nepal. In the rural American area I'm from Nepalese restaurants (run by Sherpas) are behind only Mexican and maybe Chinese as far as ethnic restaurants, and all because of connections made with climbers.
Some Americans also become interested in the parts of Nepal that don't involve deadly risk and in the Nepalese people. There are architects that take trips to Nepal on their own dime just to volunteer to help improve how buildings are built, engineers that work on better and cheaper stoves, etc.
There are obvious downsides, but there are also upsides.
There is so much wrong in this statement. Climbing is for everyone, and that includes a rich guy from google and Sherpas. The mountains are the spiritual homeplace for Sherpas, and for climbers. Sure, guides on Everest, deserve far more protection in working conditions but the Sherpa summiteers of Everest I have met, are also incredibly proud of their achievements. Ideally Everest, can provide the opportunity of bringing the west and Asia together in mutual benefit, just like Sherpa Tenzing Norgay and Edmund hilary did.
I just spent three months in Nepal hiking with ethnic Sherpas guides [0]. Within their communities the high-mountain Sherpa guides are looked up to as brave and strong - they represent many of the endurance and physical capabilities that Sherpa culture values. The high-mountain guides also make the most money, it's a significant amount by local standards: enough to buy a house and provide for your family after a few seasons. It is, however, very dangerous so some families don't want their children to do it - according to the Sherpa's I spoke to.
In general, the Sherpa group is one of the most well-off in the country. They're able to afford well-built houses, pay for help with their fields and importantly send their children to school: many Sherpa pay for their children to go to an "English" speaking school because the state-run ones aren't good. Their villages have safe bridges and all through Nepal you'll find bridges that have been put up by a Sherpa group (whose name I've temporarily forgotten). Bridges are important as they connect the high tribes. Overall, I'd say they are well-off, and in fact some Sherpa complain about inflation because other groups know they have more money. I came away with the impression that the imbalance between groups could be a cause for concern.
It's important to note that these are high-mountain groups, they live between 2000 and 3500 metres in a landscape where there is some farming, but above a certain height it's basically only good for goats and Yak. It's marginal land, and a tough life of farming.
The better living conditions and education standards come from tourist money. It's as simple as that - their significant earning capacity relative to other groups comes from their reputations as fantastic guides (honest, strong and with good English). If there was no money from tourists then the only option would be farming, in my opinion.
The Sherpas are better off with the climbers (in my opinion). We can know this because other mountain tribe groups are relatively poorer and they have the opportunities you mentioned to do other things. Other than working abroad [1], the other opportunities are hypothetical. And, in the case of creating "marketable crafts and products" I think that's unrealistic because you're dealing with people whose main aim each year is to have enough food to eat: there's some carpet making but it's really small scale.
I didn't do any high mountaineering - I was hiking and camping. The Nepalese I dealt with (Sherpa and other groups) were very happy there are tourists and would love more to go. Of course, for them it's a job - just like the people in the tourist industry anywhere else in the world.
Most people aren't going to be climbing high mountains. But Nepal is a beautiful country even if you only view the Himalayas from afar - they're superb. It's a beautiful country to explore, the mountains and landscapes are fantastic, and the people are welcoming and interesting.
[0] In Nepal the word Sherpa is used in two ways, in the first it represents the Sherpa tribe (an ethnic (I think) group), in the second it means "a guide". We had ethnic Sherpas who were our guides - Sherpa Sherpa!
[1] Many do live abroad but they go alone, without wives and children, as the village where your lands are is a key part of the culture in my understanding.
But then a friend send me this:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-cells-into-t...
Apparently, hiking at altitude causes permanent changes in the brain, even at "low" altitudes like EBC - which has kinda freaked me off about the trek.
I wonder how the sherpas/local populace deal with that?
Evolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_...
From the wiki page: "In fact, the adaptation account of the Tibetans has become the fastest case of human evolution in the scientific record, as it is estimated to have occurred in less than 3,000 years."
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(05)00674-1/fulltext
@the_af: In the future it'd be most courteous of you to provide links to that which you cite; it spares everyone from having to google it ;)
No need to google it at all.
Honestly, if you want to hike to EBC, I'd worry more about the flight into Lukla. Or edema from AMS.
(I've climbed a "trekking peak" [Lobuche East] in Nepal as well as Kilimanjaro.)
Kilamanjaro is 5895 metres, and EBC is 5380 metres.
You're correct that in the study, the Kilamanjaro climbers (n=7), most of them came back with normal brain scans. That is definitely encouraging.
Also, I have heard that Kilamanjaro is tougher than EBC, due partly to the rate ascent and people pushing themselves too aggressively - if I was to do EBC, I'm happy to take it slower, to avoid AMS. I'll probably be taking diamox, but I don't know if that makes a difference here.
(I did the Inca Trail to Macchu Picchu with a group, fairly aggressive pace, but it's considerably lower - although I just Googled and apparently the highest point on the trail is 4215 metres, so maybe not that different).
There may be hope yet...haha.
How did you find your trek via Lobuche East? Any ill effects? And you found it easier than Kilimanjaro?
Climbing Lobuche East and glacier traverse+rescue training on Cho La glacier were both harder than hiking Kilimanjaro, but were my favorite parts of the trip.
As far as ill effects… there were some injuries, sickness, and minor AMS symptoms among my group on both trips (headache, cough, shortage of breath… nothing serious). We were careful about acclimatization, though.
Of the two, I'd really recommend trekking in Nepal. It's one of those places I find myself missing, and I'd love to go back.
What good style is varies location to location but the lengths Everest climbers go to in my opinion are laughable. They pay poor people to fix ladders across crevasses? They pay poor people to fix ropes? I am not denying that climbing Everest with these advantages is hard, it is still very hard, but just because it is hard does not make it worthwhile.
don't even get them started on the discussion of 'booty' and what is effectively claiming gear from the weak who test their limits or try things beyond them.
Climber logic is often strange and puzzling thing to me. It is some weird hybrid of libertarianism, anarchism, and statism at the same time. The unspoken rules must be followed, unless I disagree with them in which case they restrict my freedom you fascist....everyone should just climb how they want but hey stop that right now...love my climbing friends but boy do I end up scratching my head sometimes.
What do you mean by that? I read it as if using a scale to know the weigh of your equipment makes the ascent not count.
If this is correct, why would that be so? and if not, then what did you mean by that?
Also, why is style considered so important? I mean, is there a similar requirement for diving for example? I know that sports with rules have...well, rules. But for something like climbing, why would that be something to take into account except if you are part of a league that certifies ascents in a particular way for example.
Could you expand a bit on that? it sounds quite interesting to me.
They mean the act of putting your weight on your equipment. If you're climbing up by pulling on the rock, and resting on ledges, that's fine, but taking a rest by sitting back in your harness, or pulling on the rope to gain height is not.
Climbing is an one of the more logical sports, but like all sports, arbitrary rules have to be set if you want to accurately compare achievements between two people. It's just a way to make sure everyone knows what you mean when you say you've 'done' a route.
That said, I recommend ignoring this aspect of climbing -- fulfilling personal goals is a lot more rewarding for everyone than trying to compare yourself to others.
I would have never thought that the action of resting your own weigh in different surfaces would mean different things. Also, I'm sure there's a historical reason for that (whatever that may be), since even arbitrary rules as they may be, have to start somewhere, and it would be interesting to see where this one came from
I also agree that ignoring those rules and achieve personal fulfillment is more important. Nonetheless it's funny how different sports' rules compare to each other, i.e. "you can't rest your weigh on your equipment" vs "you can't touch the ball with your hands" or "you have to run to this mound first, and then this one, and then this one"
Historically, climbing safety equipment was very basic compared to what is used today -- a rope tied around your waist held by your mate at the bottom of the pitch might stop you tumbling down the mountain, but you don't really want to find out.
In the UK, climbing culture is pretty conservative compared to other places (there's very little sport climbing here), so the (extremely sensible) attitude that your safety gear is for accidents not for helping you climb harder routes is quite prevalent.
There is also great pride in being the first one to "free a route", free climbing a route where all previous parties have used gear (also called aid climbing).
Full-on aid climbing generally involves hanging a ladder from gear, stepping up on the highest rung, and placing another piece of gear and a higher ladder. This can actually be incredibly physical and incredibly mentally taxing since the gear used might be a tiny hook hanging off a dime edge, or a postage-stamp sized piton hammered into a seam.
Hope that helps!
It's really an interesting take on the rules for sure.
I can't imagine my safety mechanism being a postage-stamp sized thingie shoved into a piece of rock and not being incredibly taxing on everything just by sheer stress of said thingie to break or slip or whatever and then tumble to my icy death.
I very much prefer to fall from an airplane and have a very thin thingie to keep me from making a hole in the ground...
If you get 20 miles in to a marathon and run out of gas - you just stop running and call it quits. In climbing, however, if you fail - you would likely be killed, or at least seriously injured. Because of this inescapable fact, safety systems get used. In general, the goal is for them only to act as a backup. If you get to the top without putting your weight on the backups, then you've answered the fundamental question of whether or not you could climb the objective in question.
Said "rules" may change a bit, depending on venue. Some people climb very difficult walls, that may be anywhere from 50-200 feet tall, and a 5 minute walk away from the car. In this case, any incidence of "cheating" by using the equipment to take your weight means, "you failed this time, try again later."
However, when people are climbing peaks or mountains, many miles from any kind of help or rescue, the rules may get bent a bit in the interest of beating out a storm, or just plain getting through a tough spot without risking injury. When this happens, the saying goes, "there is no cheating, only lying." You basically own up to any aid you may have used along the way, and no one will judge. Nothing's stopping you, or someone else, from going back another day and trying again for the more coveted "clean" ascent.
So in short, if I understand correctly, a "clean" run would mean that in theory if you weren't carrying any safety equipment you would've made it just the same. However to avoid actually killing yourself attempting something like that, you just "lose a life" and get to start over again from the beginning without actually dying.
Sounds actually very logical as said before.
I'd highly recommend you do some alpine mountaineering and then see if your opinions stay the same. Alpine is so much bigger than anything you can climb in the UK, and the Himalayas are at the ultimate end of the scale. Given a choice between pulling on some gear or dying - I'm pulling on the gear [0].
I often think mountaineering to climbing, is like road-biking is to mountain biking - initially they seem comparable, and we use some of the same skills in both, but there are also so many differences that it's practically impossible to make comparison.
[0] For a start the "bad style" your talking about is __common practise__ in alpine climbing. Do a google search for "french free".
Capitalism in its purest form.
In the former case, "extreme capitalism" and "pure capitalism" may be two different things. In the latter, they are synonymous.
Essentially... depends on your point of view.
So far my guess is that, as hinted in this and another response [0], that "extreme" is being used as a euphemism for "things I morally disagree with". Which, to me, does not make it any less "pure", but is rather your judgement on what "pure" capitalism is.
I don't see how this tragic event is a pure form of anything except tragedy.
I don't make any value judgements in the above, except perhaps in the first sentence. It's simply my interpretation of the comment, and how the quote was representing "pure" capitalism in my understanding.
I think by now you have sufficiently, if indirectly, answered my question of what you meant by "extreme". It seems like I was probably correct in my guess.
1. The pirates leave port to plunder, commit general acts of piracy and get that booty.
2. The pirates contract cholera and half the crew is incapacitated or dead.
Point 1 is widely considered unethical, but the reasons that it is considered unethical depends on what basis you hold for ethics (stealing from a person vs stealing from society vs stealing from government vs liberating from "the system", that kind of difference).
Point 2 is tragic (extreme distress), but could also be considered "karmic" (for lack of a simpler expression) depending on your ethical viewpoint.
Is it pure piracy? Well, did they pirate anything? If not, then no that's not piracy, it's misfortune. Did they pirate something and then lose it because of the cholera? If so, then yes it's still piracy, they still committed the act.
>In most societies, you gotta work to eat. I don't think it's necessarily a function of capitalism.
No, it's a function of a living and dying organism which requires sustenance. Capitalism is simply a means of trading value #1 for value #2 between organisms in which the organisms respect property rights (capital) of the individual organism.
If I had a billion dollars in the bank, I would not need to work to eat, despite living in a capitalist society. So yes, needing to work to eat is not a function of capitalism. Capitalism just says that an entity that has food gets to decide how to assign that food, since food is just another form of capital. Socialism would say that the community should decide.
This is also capitalism is it not?
I think the previous guy was trying to say that there is no morality in capitalism and therefore words such as extreme and pure do not apply. Capitalism is only concerned with money, nothing else.
Pure can certainly still apply. After all, there is no morality in the existence of water, but water can still be pure.
But if they do - the operators will have to pay costs (permits, sherpas, etc) while having no revenue.
That can't be the full story, though. Because the obvious answer to that is that the Sherpa mountaineers should purchase insurance against cancellation of bookings (this is quite common for tourist attractions in more developed economies).
Underwriting this insurance would be quite easy, because the people who underwrite the insurance policies for the tourist climbers should be quite happy to underwrite policies for the Sherpa mountaineers as well.
[1] http://www.rockandice.com/lates-news/exploitation-everest-sh...
Capitalism at its finest.
That doesn't mean that it's ethical for visitors to a country to enjoy a sport wherein they pay to transfer risk of death away from themselves and onto less advantaged local people. I'm not against this type of deal in principle - it's vital to the existence of institutions like EMS and the military - but when the whole thing exists so that megalomaniacs can tick off another box on the "hard things I've achieved" list, there is a real question of justice.
Most people who love capitalism might still draw the line at some types of transactions -- maybe your line is at selling organs or child prostitution, but it probably exists somewhere.
> That doesn't mean that it's ethical for visitors to a country to enjoy a sport wherein they pay to transfer risk of death away from themselves and onto less advantaged local people.
I have trouble seeing how it's more ethical to remove the choice from their hands and force them to do things that they demonstrably would rather not do.
Doesn't my enjoyment of king crab rely on transferring the risk of death while fishing in the arctic from myself to poor fishermen in Alaska? Doesn't any diamond I buy rely on conflict or slavery?
The guy come with his values, has money, changes people life, and think it is okay because by his own standards he did good.
That's it. The one who got the power makes the rules, and who cares about the weak?
Why cannot they be born in another place? The deserved it. Not your fault. You were lucky at the lottery of life and why feel bad about it?
And then add a cynical layer of "look at all the improvement our culture/money is bringing the locals". How these ungrateful dare spit on money? Bringing the superiority of your culture while connecting with the nature unspoiled by the masses.
Why people don't understand that it is better dying having a job, than maybe be poor with but sharing your life with your beloved one? Surprising no?
Yes, why would people dare want to live in dignity when they are not born lucky?
Some people never amazed me at being so naively arrogant.
I really wonder why some people don't like this kind of attitude.
Btw, I would also like to live in dignity from a work that is reasonable without killing me. I have the right to not like to work especially when the sharing is far from being fair and I cannot see my wife.
So I think it is far from only Nepalese that may be angry in the world right now.
Slavery, mercantilism, barter system, communism, etc don't solve this problem any better. In fact, historically, they're much, much worse.
Whether a communist system actually would or could operate in this manner is probably best left as an empirical question.
LOL. Been to Nepal twice and despite eating this every meal (nearly flavorless rice & lentil soup), can't say it had any side effects. The water situation in Nepal is dire, take a heavy filter with you, but if the food wasn't purchased on the street or wasn't an unwashed fruit, you're likely fine.
Most travelers are diligent about avoiding direct contamination from local water or even ice. Fewer consider the indirect contamination that can occur from a glass washed in tap-water without detergent, or knives used to cut fruit that are washed off in the local water.
I brush my teeth with bottled water, as well.
I spent over a month backpacking around the Annapurna region of Nepal without a filter drinking from both stream and well water without treatment the entire time I was there. Never had a problem. If you are referring to water in / around a village you could say water of every country is dire since that water is almost always contaminated somehow. The water coming straight off a mountain is almost always perfectly fine in my experience which is the case anywhere you go. I'll also add I spoke with several people who also went without a filter and drank from both village wells and streams without any issues. Matter of fact I know of no one who got sick in Nepal. I also ate tons of street food and dhal baht from some of the most hole in the wall places, no issues. As always your mileage may vary but I think calling the situation dire is a stretch.
It goes without saying that no expense should be spared in protecting lives, sherpa should not be exposed to more risks than absolutely necessary and should be covered by comprehensive insurance. If need be, this should be imposed by the regulatory power of the Nepalese state.
Nevertheless, it is a self-sustained ecosystem, fueled by relatively big money of narcissistic bastards (starting from $50k per head and up to $150, which some Japanese guy paid to reach the top at the age of above 75 - I don't remember exactly) which is certainly a huge money for Nepal. A small percentage of these money (the most of it sank into bottomless pockets of agency owners and govt officials) buys all the manual labor required to place a tourist on the top, from yak caravans carrying supplies of food and cooking gas from Lukla to porters carrying tourist's luggage, cooks, guides who fix the ropes, managers, etc.
One should understand that Nepal is still a traditionally caste-based and inherently unequal society, no matter what the communist infested govt is saying. What tourists call "Sherpa" is not just one ethic group of Nepalese Sherpas - natives of the Solukhumbu region, but a mix of several tribes, among whom Sherpas are majority.
As strange as it sounds, there is not much tension about different castes (even among Sherpas there are a few castes) involved on this business. Lower castes do manual labor for small wages, higher castes do the "management" for relatively big profits, but everyone are satisfied with their lot. This is how local economy works for hundreds of years.
Moreover, Nepalese society, being segregated among more than 40 different tribes, is a remarkable example of tolerance and cross-ethnic respect for a so diverse nation. If you boarding an intercity bus in Kathmandu you will encounter members of at least 10 different tribes, and, in a deep contrast to Western cultures, there will be not a slight tension among people. It has something to do with less selfishness, arrogance and narcissism of competitive individualistic societies.
BTW, in case of an avalanche everyone is equal - the guides and the porters. So there is nothing much to dramatize and sensationalize. Yes, it is a hard, risk taking field work. But no one forces anyone to take this job.
What really annoying are these office stooges, who are routinely trying to make a publicity for themselves with all these meaningless PR actions, publications, etc. Go there, and pay more cash to the wage laborers, rise the wages of your staff by keeping less in your pockets, by spending less on your own status and comfort - this will worth more that all your hypocrite "projects" combined.
Avalanches is not the main problem in Himalaya. Corruption and hypocrisy is.
So it's essentially modern human history and current human affairs, in a microcosm. That might be coming across cynical, but at the same time, hopefully there is light at the end of our collective tunnel - so to speak.
But as irrational as it may sound, a part of my subconscious was worried that if we didn’t continue, I would be cursed to come back for a third attempt.
Everest induces vertigo on your reasoning processes.
"As a dice roll for someone paying to reach the summit, the dangers of climbing can perhaps be rationalized. There’s no other service industry in the world that so frequently kills and maims its workers for the benefit of paying clients.”
Despite knowing all this, people still climb which means there is some other factor at work. If there was a greater respect for life (for the lives of climbers themselves and for the lives of Sherpas) perhaps there wouldn't be so many willing to take great risks to scale the mountain.
Donations: http://everestavalanchetragedy.com/sherpa-fund.html
Sherpas earning way below what they deserve is an open secret, yet they are better paid than rest of the country. Nepalese government support after the avalanche hit was telling. There's no formal support structure whatsoever. The members of the British Expedition that first summited the Everest opened up schools and charities for the Sherpas there [0]. The Government needs to get its act together too, and tighten regulations.
Climbing Everest has long become a mis-placed adventure. A notorious incident where a solo Spanish climber was left for dead whilst other climbers on-trail just watched him die, comes to mind... there's nothing they could have done though, to help him... how can an experience like that amount to an "adventure"? [1] A Chinese business-woman, I think, summited Everest right after the disaster struck. She flew across the icefall in a heli, what many "climbers" consider "cheating" [2].
Sherpas, in addition to their favourable genetic make-up custom built for high-altitude are known for their bravery too. There are recored instances of Sherpas putting their life in danger to save their client's life. It is almost a given that the Sherpa wouldn't abandon you, even if the chances of survival were really grim. An unfortunate incident that happened at K2 in '08 serves as a reminder and a proof of this. It fills me with extreme sadness, every time I read it. The perils of high-altitude climbing are many-- HAPE, HACE, Blindness, Oxygen starvation (this has the most dire consequence imaginable, it takes away one's ability to act rationally), and most of the climbers don't worry too much, because the Sherpas got their back.
Mt. Godwin Austin (K2) is considered to be the deadliest and toughest of the 8000'ers to climb. It isn't as commercialized. Speaking of K2... the history of the first-ever expedition (from Italy) to successfully summit the K2 is fraught with fraud, spite, and hubris [4]. High-altitude climbing is one of those things that is hard to understand for people not emotionally invested in it.
[0] http://himalayantrust.org/
[1] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151008-the-graveyard-in-th...
[2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140805-mount...
This happens with:
- Car washers (sorry, but can you please redo my car because you left a streak here and I paid $8).
- Nannies (sorry, have to cancel today. Sorry you cant reschedule other people but my fiance rescheduled our dining / wining outing)
- Home cleaning services (sorry, but I have a headache and can't have noise at the house. Sorry you can't reschedule and will have to miss my money to make rent)
- Drivers (sorry, i just wanted to go one block but did not want to scratch my brand new $400 shoes)
- Immigrant laborers picking your fruit (send them back!)
- Sherpas (read the article)
This is why if I have to use an Uber ride for < $5, I add a $10 on top directly to the driver.
I think the Everest situation is actually a little sillier, in that you have a bunch of people coming home saying "I climbed Everest!" and everybody forgets the little detail that they had personal staff prepping their every way.
I have a lot of appreciation for others though who do this challenge overcoming real obstacles such as blindness, missing a body part, or some other personal tragedy which must be conquered through conquering the big mountain, so I am not referring to these situations in my comments.
Downvotes expected.
This doesn't really invalidate the accomplishment though. Everest is so extreme that getting to the top, even with support staff, is damn impressive.