I really do think a lot of you are being killjoys.
Yeah!
I know that when I leave someone to die, I have a lot more fun. So quit harshing my buzz, people!
Yeah how dare we spoil the fun of Summiting by bringing up the fact that these people have left others to die alone in a harsh cold area just so that they can climb a frickin mountain.
What else do you want to ban? Seems the more fun a sport is the riskier it is. No one that isn’t participating in these sports is being hurt (except possibly families, but here the responsibility is hard to pinpoint).
How do you think that Princhester’s remarks about regatta sailors agreeing not to turn back for crew members lost overboard in extreme conditions fit in with this discussion?
Under what circumstances is it okay/acceptable for adventure seekers to leave a teammate to certain death, if they have mutually agreed upon that policy in advance?
Only if a rescue attempt would spell certain death for the rescuers? Only if a rescue attempt would exceed a certain risk threshold for the rescuers? Only if a rescue attempt has a low probability of being successful? How low?
It’s easy just to slam people who don’t attempt rescues under extreme conditions (at sea or at altitude) as “sociopaths” (and I don’t feel all that warmly toward them myself), but I think that ignores the fact that the decisions involved are actually pretty complex.
(Of course, as I noted already, my own proposed solution is simple. Just shut the mountain down.)
To protect whom exactly?
It would protect the mountain if nothing else.
Remember, I already noted that my proposal to shut off all Everest access is radical and generally unacceptable and outside the realm of practical possibility. That said, the reason I (semi-seriously) advocate it is not specifically to “protect” any particular entity or group, but simply on the principle that Enough is Enough. Glory-dazzled climbers were allowed to use Everest, they have not played nicely with it, and it’s time for the grownups to take it away.
In the 15 (give or take) years I have been a rock climber and general outdoor adventurer, I’ve never heard of a single person being left behind in a crisis without a reasonable attempt at rescue. And in all honestly, I believe that these much publicized “left behinds” are the exceptions rather than the rule.
So giving them the benefit of the doubt…
Touring companies who summit after a client collapses: Think of it from even a selfish business perspective. Touring companies have teams and it would be business suicide to abandon a client if you didn’t totally, utterly have to because everyone else would die. I can’t imagine that it’s common to leave someone behind, unless they are trying to evacuate everyone.
As for other people not helping: it’s probably just that they don’t realize the popsicle on the mountain is alive and not just one of the 200 frozen corpses up there. There are many reports that there are bodies in plain sight. So if some novice climber is following a tour guide and sees a prone body with no one else waiting with it, he/she will probably think “Oh, that corpse looks new.”
The mountaineers who rescued Lincoln Hall found him sitting there talking and trying to take his clothes off. If he’d been lying still, they may not have stopped.
The most callous abandoments are being reported, but with over 2,000 successful summits, I don’t imagine it’s normal to leave someone behind if it’s not an urgent matter of survival.
Not sociopaths in the conventional sense of the term carrying the implication they are there to harm someone else.
But certainly if you broaden the term to mean “You are in a pickle you chose to put yourself in and your pickle is not my problem,” OK: sociopaths. Whatever label you want to apply.
There must be some level of frustration for those who prepare adequately, have great competence, and whose single shot at fulfilment of their dream is thwarted by an incompetent twit who does not belong on the mountain but is floundering near death. I am not saying that is the average individual in trouble, but from what I have read it is not unusual. Neither is an interview to find out if they are “rescue-worthy” either practical or defensible. As a consequence this attitude is taken: “I will trade away my “right” to be rescued for a release from the obligation of rescuing someone else.”
I believe these factors do combine to make Everest somewhat unique, and I suspect it alters the normal human dynamic. If it were possible to filter climbers so that Everest was being summited only by those appropriate to climb the mountain, I think the net cameraderie would be improved and a willingness to stop and help would be more universal.
In the interim, unless you are willing to climb alongside “sociopaths” find a different playground. Again: your choice.
I thought about combat situations, but I ruled that out because I was talking strictly about physical conditions. Being under enemy fire is more intense than mountaineering, certainly. But the combination of hypothermia, altitude sickness, and oxygen deprivation generally does not occur in combat. So Everest is stressful in a purely physical way, and takes a high physical toll, long before anyone has to make a tough decision. I’d expect a soldier to go back for a fallen comrade at sea level. Not necessarily if they were in the Death Zone on Everest.
It’s clear to me that Everest needs a professional rescue service. There need to procedures worked out and trained for, and certification of guides, and rescue gear pre-positioned, etc. And teams would probably have to have more professionals in the mix with first responder obligations to their amateur clients.
It’s not entirely clear whether this is politically, logistically or financially viable, however. Presumably this would all have to be paid for by some kind of climber’s license. I’m not in the same league as the people shelling out those kind of bucks for a thrill – would they pay double to cut their chance of death in half? I certainly would if I could afford it.
This is a classic, if microtized version, of the sport of a few turning into an industry of large mobs.
I can appreciate the frustration, but that doesn’t release someone from the ethical obligation to help other humans who are in mortal peril. Nor can one barter away that obligation by insisting that others not show you the same consideration. I cannot, for example, go around punching other people in the face, and expect any special dispensation or leniency just because I’ve stated ahead of time that I don’t mind if other people punch me in the face.
It’s not even a reasonable argument, because most people, if they found one of these “every man for himself” types freezing to death on the side of a mountain, would try very hard to help him back down again, his protests not withstanding. Saying, “I won’t help others, and I don’t expect others to help me,” is a cheat, because the person knows very well that there are a lot of people who will help him if he needs it.
And if I don’t want to be mugged, I should avoid dark alleys at night. That in no way excuses the actions of muggers who hang around insufficiently illuminated alleys after sundown.
Actually, Beck Weathers, the man in question, lost one hand entirely, most of the other, his toes, his nose, and had to have reconstructive surgery on his face. Pretty major injuries, but since most others in his situation have died I suppose he tries to make the best of it.
I am missing your main point, I guess. An understanding not to extend mutual aid is quite a different notion from an understanding to go around unilaterally actively harming someone who has not agreed to that…I never said anything about throwing other climbers down the glacier… 
It may well be true that there is an asymmetry between codes which acts to the benefit of those who would not themselves render aid. The unfairness of this is entirely the choice of the aid-giver. Choice…independent, free choice. It is such a key concept in grasping all of this.
My point is that an attitude that says, “Me getting to the top of this mountain is more important that you living,” is reprehensible. Switching the pronouns around does not make it any less so.
Indeed, if there were not an aspect of free will, it would be pointless to criticize. If the people were somehow forced to abandon fellow climbers to freeze to death, then it would not be possible to blame them for their actions, as they had no control over them. This is not the case. They chose to value reaching the summit over the life of another human being. That makes them monsters. There is no context into which you can translate that attitude that makes it okay. Mount Everest is not a morality-free zone where anything goes, just because some people really, really want to get to the top of it.