Everest through the eyes of a Sherpa | Hacker News Reader

Everest through the eyes of a Sherpa

bbc.com

108 pointsmax23_77 comments

Summiting Everest, as a tourist, is basically unimpressive and a strong indicator you're an empty box-checker. Any moderately fit person with $100k lying around can get short-roped or crawl up the fixed lines to the top while sucking down bottles of oxygen, endangering the lives of the people helping them on their way.

If you meet someone who has climbed Everest, don't validate their ego.

Did you read the article? The sherpa is saying the exact opposite of this.

> "Climbers need to wake up and understand that climbing a big peak like Everest is extremely risky. They need to stop believing just because they are with a 'Sherpa guide' who has summited Everest 10 times that they will be rescued if they get in trouble," says Alan.

It can be both 'unimpressive' and reckless.

Yes, I read the article, and am a mountaineer, and stand by what I said. It's tricky to talk about difficulty with those not versed in the sport, because with mountains like Everest (which are non-technical high-altitude walkups) it's about objective risks like weather or avalanches or HAPE/CE rather than subjective risks like lack of strength or fitness or coordination or whatever.

As a mountaineer do you actually come across people who show off about climbing Everest? I guess that could be really annoying.

I am not a mountaineer but I have always dreamed of climbing Everest just because of reading books as a kid. It seems like an amazing form of escapism rather than about ego or anything like that. I think that is what drives a lot of extreme fitness activities. You have something to focus on and work towards and a possibility of feeling a sense of achievement. I think rock climbers are more about feeling a sense of flow which makes it a completely different sport.

I had a go at climbing Everest but turned back at about 8400m when my oxygen gear packed up. I find it funny that people are really impressed by Everest climbing which always seemed to me a bit of a dumb expensive trudge up a large rock and very unimpressed by my attempts to figure why the universe exists which seems to me a noble and logical thing to do but people think you're nuts. Life's odd like that I guess.

That said Everesting was quite fun. I went unguided but with a lot of logistical support, and tried to develop my own oxygen gizmo. It wasn't my invented bit that failed by the way.

I’d like to piggy back on this comment and ask you: what do you see as your aspirational mountaineering accomplishment(s)? Or is that even the right way to look at mountaineering? And what would you suggest to a beginner how to get more into the sport safely?

I’m getting pretty into mountaineering (or at least setting myself up to be), I rock climb outside about once a week now in Clear Creek, Colorado. I hike as many 14ers as I can a summer. I also back country ski in the winter and am getting my AIARE 1 this winter.

Currently I aspire to do the seven summits once I’m confident I’m prepared and ready. So I’m wondering about the above because I’m starting to see this as a flawed accomplishment.

It's certainly worth examining what you want out of the sport, because at some point you'll get seriously injured, or have a near-death experience, or have a friend die, and will have to justify your participation to yourself. I won't go so far as to say that if a traumatic incident changes your approach to the sport then you were living/climbing inauthentically (trauma has real mental effects), but it shouldn't send you into too much of a crisis.

Mountaineering is a very personal sport and I don't want to gatekeep it saying you're approaching it the wrong way. Having a list of peaks you want to climb is fine, but I do roll my eyes a bit at the box-checkers. It's a fine line.

It sounds like you're taking a good approach into mountaineering (I'm really not much of an authority here, honestly). Personally I went the route of joining a local volunteer-run mountaineering club, but independent close-knit groups of climbers are just as good (assuming you have similar attitudes toward safety, risk, and technical education).

My personal goal with mountaineering is to be climbing well into my 70s, just like some of the older people in my club. This requires avoiding routes with higher objective risks, but there are more than enough mountains in the world with which to fill one's heart.

I definitely struggle with the idea of box checking, it is however one of the easiest ways to show progress to myself. Which is why I think many people start with it. I think I'm going to reevaluate how I show personal progress, as well as always double check that safety is my number one priority vs summit chasing. Even though you aren't an authority, this is great info, thanks for this.

As with anything, people get into trouble when they fixate on goals rather than the process.

If your objective is simply to become a better mountaineer rather than tick off a list of summits, that'll naturally lead you in a sensible direction. You'll get the right training, you'll work on your skills and fitness, you'll look for routes that offer the greatest technical challenge at the lowest risk. The inverse attitude is what gets most people into trouble on Everest - they push far beyond the limit of their abilities, they ignore clear warning signs that their body is failing, all because they're preoccupied with the summit.

Standing in the street in Miami during a hurricane is also extremely risky. That doesn't make it a impressive achievement.

For that matter, so is playing russian roulette.

I think I’ll trust the Sherpa from the article instead of you. The article is literally about how Everest is very hard and dangerous and that how tourists are being convinced it’s not.

I’m no mountaineer, but I’ll guess the misunderstanding here stems from where one draws the baseline. If you’re someone who spent years climbing in the Alps, then I assume that Mt Everest

I’m no mountaineer, but I’ll guess the misunderstanding here stems from where one draws the baseline. If you’re someone who spent years climbing in the Alps or in Colorado, then I assume that Everest simply may not be an upgrade. It’s like doing an easy climb in the Alps at half the oxygen and more severe weather—in terms of athleticism, there’s no extra achievement. The sherpa in the article probably talks about very fit “urban” people, which is still very different different from an experienced mountaineer. I may still be off though.

It's stupendously dangerous, but by mountaineering standards it's not a technically difficult climb. With enough Sherpas lugging enough oxygen bottles, you can drag a complete no-hoper to the summit. A substantial proportion of people who summit Everest have minimal mountaineering experience and some of them have never even worn crampons before. They're objectively bad mountaineers, but they make it to the summit nonetheless - they're taking big risks to get there, some of them won't come back, but it's not a particularly great achievement.

By contrast, your local indoor climbing gym almost certainly has routes that are beyond the ability of 99% of climbers. There's no team of Sherpas to get you past the tricky parts with ladders and fixed ropes, just holds and chalk and muscle and brains. The only way you're ever going to complete that route is through years of hard training.

That's the point people are making when they say that Everest is "easy". Everest has taken an outsized place in the popular imagination because it's the biggest, but it's a million miles from the hardest - it's just incredibly dangerous, for reasons which are mostly beyond the control of even the most skilled climber.

I mean, that’s like saying killing yourself isn’t hard to do. You probably don’t need “crampons” (whatever that is) to do. But why is it that more/most people don’t commit suicide? Because it’s genuinely hard to do. Every evolutionary single is telling you not to do it. The same goes for Everest.

Whether something is hard or not doesn’t depend on training or dedication or whatever. It depends on how likely you are to do it.

To give a more extreme example: how hard is it to cut off and eat your own finger? By your standards, it sounds pretty easy (no crampons required). But actually going through with it requires such force of will that only a few would ever be capable of such a feat.

It is humorous you feel confident enough to write a whole opinion about what makes mountaineering difficult without knowing what crampons are, or taking the five seconds to google it. Knowledge of crampons wouldn't make your opinion valid, but lack of knowledge definitely makes it invalid.

You are talking about Cho Oyu, not Everest. Everest, especially without supplementary oxygen, is a major achievement and if you don't prepare well, you are likely to increase mortality rate. Not to mention avalanches, falling seracs and a sudden major change of local weather can kill you anytime without any warning.

It's rare to climb without supplementary oxygen. Weather/avalanche/seracs fall in the objective hazard category and are unrelated to how fit you are (beyond moving through danger zones faster). Everest is not a major achievement, it's a high-altitude walkup.

Not really, look at list of deaths on Everest here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_on_eight-thousa...

Many people abort due to altitude sickness and resulting cerebral edema at altitudes below 7,000m but you never hear about it. Super-trained athletes can get altitude sickness and sometimes unfit people don't, and that can completely change a year later; it's basically a lottery if in a given time-span you are able to climb to the top or not. From about 7,500m your resting heart rate becomes over 120bpm and from 8,000 you are literally dying from asphyxiation; doing a 9h training run on a bike is easier than an hour on Everest at that altitude. Your mental capacity is diminished , you are no longer able to focus on other people just on yourself, and it's all about your own survival and your own will to progress further and live. Anything that goes wrong at that elevation is likely to kill you and maybe others around you as well.

But I agree that from purely technical standpoint there is only one spot on Everest that requires real climbing, but that one is pretty high up, making it super challenging comparing to e.g. Swiss Alps. As an athlete, you'd find south face of Nanga Parbat a real challenge that no "rich tourist" can ever climb and that's probably why you are so dismissive.

I think we agree it is a collection of objective hazards and getting to the top is largely chance. The baseline fitness required is not astonishingly high and is within reach of moderately fit people as they spend weeks/months at base camp acclimating.

Last I heard the Hillary Step had been destroyed in the earthquake, but people still talk about it so who knows. Also, I will never climb nanga parbat lol (barring the greatest midlife (end of life?) crisis the world has ever seen)

Yeah, there are conflicting reports about Hillary step:

"Last year, Mingma Tsiri Sherpa who has nine summits told the Daily Mail, “The fixed lines are more to the right of the step (than before). We’re now walking on the snow whereas before we had to walk on the rocky side. That is the reason for the confusion.” And 15 time summiter, Pemba Dorje Sherpa said “The Hillary Step is as it was before, but a large stone above it has fallen”"

I think you’re underestimating the difficulty. No moderately fit person can do it. You have to be very good but even then it’s still a big risk.

"It's pressure on young climbers by some companies describing Everest as easy. Everest is never easy."

Not just companies - it's 'common knowledge' now that Everest is just a hike with rich clients being dragged up by poorly paid sherpas.

I remember hearing a talk by Ed Viesturs who was the first American to climb all 14 eight-thousanders

He emphasized that his rule was that going up was optional, coming down wasn’t and told a story of this one mountain climb where they spent weeks getting ready to the point where they were ready to summit. I don’t remember the details, but for some reason they were not able to get the start they wanted and it would be close to being dark by the time they got back from the summit. Instead of risking it, he aborted and came back the next year.

Sometimes knowing when to abort an endeavor is one of the most important skills.

I dive (albeit new) and knowing when to abort is taught over and over again. In general, from both theory and practice, the threshold is pretty low. Any kind of physical and mental stress means you surface.

I guess what makes Everest so different are the costs involved. I imagine the sunk cost fallacy is magnified.

Yeah. With diving an abort is not a big deal. Just do it again tomorrow. With Everest you have already put in a lot of effort and money and you may never get the opportunity to do it again.

Also, when you do stupid things there is often a good chance to get away with it. I have done things I shouldn’t have done but I have fond memories of overcoming the hardship.

Aborting a shallow sport dive is no big deal. But some of my acquaintances go on major expeditions doing deep, complex technical dives on shipwrecks and in caves. Just getting to the dive site can be a major logistical undertaking, and there's often a large group of surface crew and support divers just to assist the push team. Sometimes permits to access a particular site are time limited, or there's only a narrow window of good weather. So those exploration divers are subject to the same mental pressures to go ahead and dive even when it's risky.

I have a pilots license. Same concept, our version is “taking off is always optional, landing never is.”

Ed is especially awesome because he did all 14 without bottled oxygen.

Here is his talk. I watched it several times already. Really inspiring story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqTcD9Amfq4

Everest has become a freakshow.

Humans are not built to climb that high, even with supplemental oxygen there is a non-trivial risk of brain trauma from blood vessel leakage even if you don't die from it. When the final push from camp 4 to the summit is a human traffic jam, the risks multiply. Because of the logistical difficulty of getting there and preparing, and the perceived (not real) "accomplishment" of reaching the summit, people take excessive risks rather than quitting when they start having cognitive impairments, the weather turns, or they're moving too slowly or using too much oxygen on the ascent, making the risk severe during descent. It's not a good situation.

Anyone with a death wish should take on one of the other peaks in the Himalayas, without all of the route prep that goes on on Everest and turns it into fast food mountaineering.

Anyone without a deathwish can find plenty of challenge on more convenient mountains elsewhere, climbing only when weather and avalanche risk are very low, since there's less pressure of feeling, like many do on Everest, that it's a once in a lifetime opportunity and they've paid lots of money to get there so they have to keep going. Or take up rock climbing. Excellent technical challenge and strength training, lower risk (with rope and prudence).

Everest used to be at real challenge. Now it's more of a contest of luck and whether you have the money. People climb it for the status, but look at the damned lines! That's not status, people. That's being a lemming. Wake up.

I agree with your sentiment mostly but I think rock climbing and mountain expeditions are just different ballgames.

I think you can't just label mountain expeditions as deathwish, a big reason people are pulled towards mountaineering is the sheer thrill you get not just battling the knowns(technical climbs, routes) but also the unknowns(weather, AMS). Mountains can be unforgiving(8 climbers died in Nanda Devi a week back) but the accomplishment you get is also something worth savouring.

Once you start, you can hardly go back. I have only done six thousanders but even I want to do more.

I read it as GP saying that rushing Everest specifically is a death wish, but that mountaineering elsewhere responsibly is what a sane person ought to look for.

> I think you can't just label mountain expeditions as deathwish

I think the parent refers to high-risk mountaneering, particularly in the context of inexperienced climbers. Given the high-risk and the inexperience, I think it's fair to label it (derogatorily) as death wish.

I agree that rock climbing hasn't such impact, but certainly there are highly demanding+highly satisfying activities. I guess completing an Ironman or the Marathon Des Sables (the latter if one expects risk) give as much satisfaction as climbing the Everest, along with status, if one's looking for it (if I got to know somebody who's climbed the Everest, it would give me a bad impression, though).

As stories like this come out more and more people’s perspective of Everest will change. The recent pictures of the lines at the top have surely changed mine.

"climbing Everest is not that big of a deal, everyone does it these days" -- internet commenter

Has anyone here climbed Everest? What drove you and what it's like up there? How did you feel afterwards?

My favorite quote on the subject still is "Every corpse on Everest was once a highly motivated person".

Something about this reminds me of school shooting stories: it’s meamt to discourage Everest trekkers, but it will probably end up encouraging them. Misconceptions abound.

Some argue that people shouldn’t climb Everest because it’s not that impressive anymore. This is irrelevant: people aren’t dumb or arrogant enough to believe they’ll convince their friends they’re great mountaineers. They’re obviously not great mountaineers and they’re at least minimally self-aware.

Some argue that people shouldn’t climb Everest because it’s crowded and not exclusive. But Mecca is crowded and the hajj rolls on. Explain.

Still others argue that people shouldn’t climb Everest because it’s dangerous. This is the worst argument of all! Dangerous things are cool! Half the stories I tell at parties involve me almost dying. Or at least I try to make it sound that way.

There is one single fact that makes people climb Everest: people don’t like to explain their accomplishments. Everyone knows what Mount Everest is. Everyone knows it’s dangerous to climb. What you gain is having done something everyone else can recognize. Stories like this only increase the notoriety of the peak. Nobody’s going to be impressed if you summit Kangchenjunga What’s that? Aconcagua? Never heard of it. Nanda Parbat? I think I had that at an Indian restaurant once. And so on.

Every time someone tweets a news story about deaths on Everest, two more idiots decide to buy a trip. I guarantee it.

Climbing Mt. Everest became a ticket to upper strata at many corporations these days that want "cool leaders".

For people interested in the topic of Himalayan big wall climbing, do checkout the movie Meru - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2545428/ it's excellent!

Jimmy Chin, the guy who directed this and went on the climb also directed Free Solo featuring Alex Honold.

I've always thought of "climbing Mount Everest" as being a literal figure of speech for something incredibly difficult and potentially very dangerous.

Why do these people think it's going to be anything less than that?

Because most of these people are accustomed to throwing money at people to solve their problems.

That’s probably it. Also, there are climbers who do it for the love of climbing but for most of these people it’s something to brag about. “ Not only am I better because I am rich but I am also physically better and I do harder things than you.”

It seems like many of the debates on HN seem to quickly devolve into classism. I am pretty sure not many people have ever met an Everest climber, let alone got to know any in order to make these sweeping generalizations.

I have talked to a guy who had climbed Mount Everest that way. He had the goal of climbing all the highest peaks on all continents and Everest was one of them. He also came from a wealthy family. He had the time and money to put in the time preparing and then paying >50k for the Everest climb. Who can afford this money and taking off months for an expedition? From what I have read Everest climbers are either basically very poor people who put all they have into climbing or they are rich enough to take time off and pay for that hobby. For a regular guy with a regular job it’s very difficult to do.

A lot of 8000-meter-plus climbers are ordinary middle-class people. The huge expenses of getting to the Himalayas, paying for permits and gear are covered by sponsorships. In some small European countries, no one from there has yet climbed Everest, Nanga Parbat etc. without supplementary oxygen. That means any expedition will get big coverage in national media, and consequently it is easy to obtain sponsorship from local subsidiaries of multinationals (e.g. Pepsi, Johnny Walker, etc.)

"In some small European countries, no one from there has yet climbed Everest, Nanga Parbat etc. without supplementary oxygen."

Isn't that a totally different level? I thought most paid climbers use oxygen.

Many of “these people,” are normal people that saved up for years to be able to do this. It isn’t just a bunch of ultra rich people “throwing money.” There are definitely some “climbers” in the category of “shouldn’t be there,” but characterizing Everest climbers as a bunch of spoiled rich people is unfair. Many people spend $100k+ on a Tesla, others might drive a used Honda and instead prioritize climbing big mountains. Let’s not paint the entire mountain with such a broad brush. The real problem is how Nepal issues permits. The Chinese side isn’t like the Nepal side.

Because rich people in general got used to solving their problems by throwing more money at the issue they face. Everest is no different. Assumption is that even if I am unexperienced, if I buy the most expensive equipment, and get the most expensive sherpa then two weeks later sipping Mojitos on my yacht I can tell averyone “yeah I climbed Mount Everest, no big deal”.

Because of how it is sold by some of the expedition organizers. Climbing Everest gives you the distinction of climbing the highest mountain in the world and if you have money it can provide good safety to you. So, a lot of people who aren't particularly well trained also try it. Everest is definitely made easier by sherpas compared to some other mountains.

Kanchenjunga, Annapurna and K2 for example are much harder and have high fatality rate despite attracting experienced climbers mostly. If memory serves me right, they have a fatality rate of about 30%.

They used to have higher fatality rate in the beginning, then with new equipment, techniques and less-reckless approach fatality rate dropped significantly, as you can see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander

There are death rates between 1950-2012 and since 2012, you can see a huge drop, e.g. Annapurna from 32% to 4%.

According to this[1], Kanchenjunga has about 22% fatality rate since 1990, can't find a newer stat. This[1] article mentions 220 climbs so far so it doesn't look like the attempts have increased a lot.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150923175946/http://mentalflos...

[2] http://www.teamwilcovanrooijen.nl/dont-climb-kanchenjunga/

Yes, Kanchnenjunga is the only mountain where recently fatality rate increased and less than 250 climbers made it to the top. Seems like that is the ultimate challenge these days. Do you want to try? ;-)

Not Kanchenjunga, definitely. :)

I don't think I have the will to attempt any eight thousander right now. I will see if I can transition to 7k first.

Try Cho Oyu, if you avoid crevasses/avalanches and react to your health state properly, it's the easiest one - base camp is at 5,700m, almost reachable by a car, then climb is "only" 2,500m. And there are only 5 higher peaks ;-)

I looked at the prices and man, even Cho Oyu seems expensive to climb. With permits and everything it looks like $30-40k.

The key differentiator has been the improvement of weather technology. The basic equipment has gotten better, but the real win has been with weather.

Can you elaborate on the weather bit? I can see improvement in predicting snowstorms but how do you predict something as unpredictable as avalanches?

Avalanche forecasting and "snow science" is a fairly developed field.

I'm only familiar with avalanche advisories in the continental US, but if you explore this map http://www.fsavalanche.org/ (click a grey area, then the "more information" button in the info box, here's one for the Central Sierra https://www.sierraavalanchecenter.org/advisory ) it'll give you an idea of the information available to the general public.

During months with an active snowpack (ie, winter) these advisories are updated on a daily basis detailing the different types of avalanche problems by altitude, aspect, likelihood, and size. Courses that teach in-the-field avalanche assessment and snowpack evaluation are widely available. Familiarizing yourself with the changing conditions over time prior to a trip will give you a pretty good idea what to expect.

In more remote parts of the world, the online information is not as available but observations over time can still be made, and I'd expect any climbing party to have the skills and tools needed for making their own assessments.

All of that said, avalanches kill people every year, even in places with resources available. Avalanche forecasts are essentially risk probabilities and how people use them comes down to personal decision making and tolerance for risk.

Thanks, I will read up more on this.

I don't think that kind of avalanche forecast can be applied to Himalayas. Normally, one has to dig ~6ft hole and observe the layers of snow on a slope and deduce its stability. So you have a bunch of guys going out in the morning, digging holes at various places and making an estimated map of avalanche danger. Often they place explosives to start a small avalanche at exposed locations, reducing a chance of a big one. Now in Himalayas you don't have a chance to do this as the main problem are avalanches coming at high speed from far away where nobody climbs; there you likely rely on stats and estimates from known weather patterns and avalanche frequency. However, any time a serac can get loose, kicking off a massive avalanche, and world's best climbers are out of luck. In super remote areas with a lot of snowfall like Kanchenjunga, you are on your own and completely depend on luck.

One sign of a super dangerous avalanche terrain is hearing sounds a few ft underneath when one is walking. That's a sign that there are (at least) two distinct layers of snow with different consistency and the sound comes from the break between them; likely a huge avalanche layer is about to run down the valley. When you hear something like that, don't laugh that it's funny to hear deep sounds, but run for your life towards safer terrain.

I totally agree with you, it's great to have federal funding for public advisories stateside. I also agree that big icefall triggered avalanches like you describe are a different sort than what weekend warriors like me encounter in the US, where the vast majority of dangerous slides are triggered by humans.

My broader point, intended more for those interested in if avalanche forecasting is even possible than the Kanchenjunga set, is that there are methods for assessing conditions and evaluating risk using both observations in the field and tracking conditions over time - relying on stats, estimates, and deep noises as you note.

It would be better to ban oxygen on Everest. A much more limited number would summit, and there would be no more discarded oxygen tanks. I've been up to 6400m and climbing up there was the most physically difficult thing I'd ever done, I can't imagine 8800m. However, people can and have climbed it without oxygen numerous times.

I personally think it would be wrong to ban it. Also, the criticism the Nepalese government will face in case someone dies because of lack of oxygen will be immense. I have heard stories of experienced climbers suffering from AMS on some climbs. No one would want that to convert to HAPE.

Does anyone know why that Sherpa's face has that distinctive tone? Is it frostbite or some kind of sun burn?

Great article by the way!

Sun burn and tan. When you spend most of your time at high altitude and don't use some kind of sun block you get that tone. I have seen that tone in local populations at altitudes > 3000m

Thinner atmosphere where they live and snow definitely contribute to a higher incidence of solar rays

Yeah. You can definitely feel the sun there. It is hard to adjust to these areas, but definitely some of the most beautiful I have been to.

Could one invent a protocol to eliminate almost all deaths? The article mentions a prudent Sherpa aborting summitting for a client who would be unable to descend. But can anything be done about sudden failures of the body in high altitude?

30-130k per person, but a sheep make 8k a season?

The Nepalese government should mandate payouts to Sherpas much higher than that.

The thing that gets my blood boiling is the discarded trash scattered around everywhere. They removed 3 tons of trash a few years back in a big cleanup attempt. If you can't carry your trash back, you shouldn't be climbing up in the first place :/

I wonder if tourism shouldn't be considered a form of pollution, and if the countries that export the most tourists shouldn't also pay a tax similar to a carbon tax towards cleaning the damage they do to the local environment.

Many places have a tourist tax already. In this case, like the article says, there's a $11000 tax for each person climbing the Everest.

BTW, a small hint, anyone climbing 8,000+ peaks should get a large dose of Viagra ;-)

EDIT: For those that didn't get it, it significantly helps with altitude sickness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com