Hmmm … a Slippery Slope argument in a GD thread about mountain climbing. Nice!
FWIW, I agree with your overall argument that the issue is more that just danger and age.
Do more than 5% of all the soldiers we send to Afghanistan and Iraq die?
I want to address this point again (as it relates to Jordan Romero, at least) in a less sarcastic manner. Climbing Everest is very hard, but it’s easier than it’s ever been because of technological advances in mountaineering, the placing of fixed ropes on the mountain, the invention of the airplane, and so on. 50 years ago, nobody would have even considered taking a 13-year-old up the mountain. Only the very best climbers could handle Everest. 100 years ago no one had ever reached the summitt at all. So if you think kids today are coddled and denied opportunities for growth that would have been available in the past… at least in this context you’re completely wrong. What he’s doing would not have been possible until recently.
I don’t feel like someone who really understood would be comparing it to hikes and mountains in the eastern US. Everest is 25,000 feet higher than anything in New England. It’s not the same ballpark, it’s not the same sport, it’s not even the same universe. And comparing it to hiking is just beyond incomprehensible.
I can’t possibly imagine why, because that’s exactly what it is.
Though I’m fascinated with Everest, and have done a little mountaineering myself, I’ve always maintained that I would never climb Everest (or any 8,000er) because so many of the opportunities for death are completely random. It doesn’t matter how skilled or how well-prepared you are.
Do you realize that the Khumbu Icefall is basically a random deathtrap? The most skilled, most well-prepared climber in the world can be crossing it and a chunk of ice the size of a house suddenly decides to fall on them, and there’s nothing he or she can do. They’re dead.
Do you realize how many ultra-elite, world-class mountaineers have simply walked right off the side of Everest (and other 8,000ers) to their deaths?
Do you realize that, above 8,000 meters is the DEATH ZONE, where the atmosphere can no longer sustain human life and your body and brain literally start to eat themselves? Just by being above this altitude, you are literally in the process of dying. The Grim Reaper himself is charging towards you with the intention of shoving his scythe up your ass, and all you have to do is stand still and he will accomplish it. And do you realize that, once you enter the DEATH ZONE on Everest, you still have almost a kilometer of vertical altitude to gain before you’re HALFWAY done? Oh yes, that’s right: when you reach the summit, you’ve objectively made it halfway. Subjectively, many climbers say, you’re about 20% of the way done. Most deaths occur on the way down.
This is beyond child endangerment. It’s Russian-fucking-Roulette.
And yet to the general public, it’s pretty much the same thing. People die every few years in the White Mountains of NH, and people are having the exact same arguments on kids trying for the “Youngest 4000’er” title. Yes, high altitude mountaineering is orders of magnitude tougher, but they are both more dangerous than the majority of the general public would accept.
We disagree, such is life.
Sadly, she wasn’t the PIC (pilot in control). It was a meaningless stunt because she couldn’t (and wasn’t) in control of the airplane. The adults in the airplane were responsible for the flight.
So 1 in 20 attempts are fatal. That doesn’t include losing fingers and toes. By default, the probability of death or serious injury is greater than 1 in 20.
Sounds like child endangerment to me.
The people talking about natural selection are right – just not in the way they think. This sort of risk is typical of male mammal sexual strategy.
Would you send your child up Mt. Everest?
No, and I’ve said so in every post in this thread.
I don’t disagree that it’s dangerous, but these numbers are wrong. 4,000 summits, 200 deaths. Not everyone summits. Lots of people fail in the attempt.
Nonetheless, I agree, it’s not appropriate for a child to consent to the level of risk involved.
I would submit that allowing stunts like this Everest thing make it more difficult for those permitting/encouraging responsible climbing and mountaineering amongst kids to win their arguments. 4000m is nothing, really - I’ve been to 5400 (Thorung La) and I’m a complete schlub. The dangers in climbing to 4000m are the same as your basic wilderness hiking dangers, plus the whole falling thing. The dangers at 8000m are that your body ceases to function. These aren’t two points on the same scale. On the one hand you have dangers that responsible preparation, experience, and safety protocols make manageable. On the other, you have death as a consequence for the slightest misstep.
I think you’ll have more luck convincing people that climbing some hill in New Hampshire isn’t over the line if you agree that climbing Everest is.
Bingo. Look at the 1996 disaster, and the experience levels of who were killed. These were people who had summitted multiple times, and were not only experienced mountaineers but specifically experienced with Everest. Basically it was completely caused by weather conditions. Weather conditions on Everest are too bad to climb except in relatively small windows of time throughout the year, and even then the situation can deteriorate very rapidly.
There are teams with extraordinary safety records but they still lose people. If you have Netflix, take a look at the Beyond the Limit series. There’s a lot of fluff but it’s very interesting at times. This is a team that does everything right – extensive time acclimating, a team doctor in Advanced Base Camp, a person at lower altitude calling the shots and watching weather conditions, experienced sherpas, experienced Western guides, every team member with radios, a 1 to 1 sherpa/client ratio. Even then, it’s still very dangerous and they vet people out before they even let them make summit bids. And they’ve still lost people (not clients yet, I don’t think - but a Sherpa was killed in the first season). They still have significant injuries.
How good do you think the odds are for an adult with a child on Everest, with no guides, with no 8-thousander experience? Is there no activity that we can’t say “um, no, it’s not okay for a child to consent to this”?
The other issue brought up in the NPR story I referred to is that by selling this as “the youngest person to ever climb Mt. Everest,” you’re setting yourself up for a 12-year old to try it next time. And then an 11-yr old, etc.
And when a 45-yr old climber gets 2000 feet from the Summit and realizes he isn’t climbing strong, or the weather is changing, he climbs down and plans his next attempt. No big deal; the mountain will be there next year. But if you’re trying to be the youngest, there’s more pressure to take risks because you have a very specific time window in which to comlete your goal.
Yeah, people can eventually acclimatize to hills in New Hampshire. Human life is inconsistent with 8,000 meters. You literally cannot survive there. You are dying every moment you’re up there.
I’m an avid Everest enthusiast, and I think this idea is ludicrous. 'Course, I also thought it was ludicrous when the blind guy tried summiting, and when the disabled guy with the prosthesis tried summiting, and when that one guy wanted to ski down from the summit, and when that other guy wanted to bike to the summit from Norway (or some such) and back.
Everest seems to attract the crazy, and has ever since Mallory tried climbing it in 1922.
Bahhh…
I tried that one summer. No grits, no okra, no sweet tea. Thank god I got out there before white stuff started falling from the sky. I still thank my lucky stars that I made it out alive and back to the deep south in one piece.
Sweden. 
Göran Kropp, right around the same time as the 1996 Everest Disaster.
NH mountains are 4000 feet, not meters. Altitude isn’t an issue. The weather is an issue, and that’s why Himalayan mountaineers come to Mt Washington to prepare for climbs like Everest. Everest climbers have said that conditions here rivaled anything they experienced over there. No, it’s not a straight comparison, but it can be extremely dangerous in the little NH mountains.
When I was at Thorung La I was just moving slowly, with a slight headache. Two weeks early, a healthy young woman (traveling with her mom) had AMS and died on the way down the other side. The dangers exist everywhere. I’m not trying to diminish the dangers of 8000 meter peak climbing, I am well aware of them and respect them. The question is do the objective dangers rise to the level of child endangerment? I still say no, but it’s not something I would ever attempt, let along allow my child to do so. Others disagree, I get that.
Heh - they don’t got no sweet tea in Nepal, either, which is where they hide the 8,000 meter mountains. I suggest staying home.