Is it possible to guide safely on Everest?
outsideonline.com
outsideonline.com
"Everest has always been a trophy, but now that almost 4,000 people have reached its summit, some more than once, the feat means less than it did a half century ago. Today, roughly 90 percent of the climbers on Everest are guided clients, many without basic climbing skills. Having paid $30,000 to $120,000 to be on the mountain, too many callowly expect to reach the summit. A significant number do, but under appalling conditions. The two standard routes, the Northeast Ridge and the Southeast Ridge, are not only dangerously crowded but also disgustingly polluted, with garbage leaking out of the glaciers and pyramids of human excrement befouling the high camps."
Maxed Out on Everest (National Geographic Article) https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/maxed-out-...
The article specifically addresses the point of customer/client expectations in light of the cost, and the response from the guides questioned is "expedition logistics are expensive. You're not buying a lift ticket to the summit, you are paying for food, oxygen, tents, salaries, and insurance. I feel no extra obligation to take you to the summit because you paid more" Granted, that's from someone whose livelihood depends on projecting an air of competence that supersedes any greed.
I became eventually of a mind that certain places must be sacrificial zones to whatever impulse drives people to go to these places. That's not to say that we should abandon Everest to the crowds and the trash and the corpses, but rather that we must develop these places to support the crowds that come. That means building infrastructure like composting toilets and designated camp sites. That means (as Anker proposes in your link) dedicated climbing rangers and climber IDs. That's not to say that every trail should be paved and made accessible to all. But rather that failure to adapt to greater numbers out of concern for "preserving the experience" ultimately destroys what's left of the experience (consider the impact idiots throwing stuff into geysers has had on Yellowstone [0]). It is true that the more developed a place is, the more people want to go there, which is why, when you start down the road to development, you have to over-build it. The upshot is that it will divert people away from areas that cannot support any more interest.
The thing about Everest in particular is it's appeal is that it can't be made safe, that climb it is an inherently dangerous activity - the top of Everest is an area known officially as "the death zone" [1] because just being there kills you (and makes you stupid and torpid).
The final ascent to Everest is paved with trash and corpses because just cleaning up an area of that sort is at least as challenging as reaching a summit. And dying in the death zone is as easy stumbling and no one being able to pick you up.
Based on how Everest and other 8000m peaks are climbed, I'd suggest that the average guided Everest climber likes to talk about how "dangerous" it is, but in practice, they aren't really involved in the conversations about their own hazard-assessment and -mitigation practices. Juxtapose that with expeditions attempting smaller but more remote mountains, alpine-style ascents on these bigger mountains, expeditions that forego supplemental oxygen, etc.
Speaking only for myself, and not for any of the voices quoted in any articles here, I think climbers as a group need to let go of their individualism a bit. Everest in its current state is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons.