I'm not sure what the appeal of Everest really is anymore now that it's been so developed. I've known people with minimal (as in, hiked up Mount Rainier and some other mountains that are totally achievable for normal people of okay fitness) climbing experience that climbed Everest. I wonder what it'd be if they mandated that people had to climb at least one other or two other 8 thousanders before climbing Everest. It'd probably cut down on the total traffic, while simultaneously generating even more revenue for Nepal as would-be Everest climbers now need to do one or two extra climbs.
Not everyone wants to climb Everest just because it's challenging or impressive. Many people do it for the same reason they go to the observatory deck of the world trade center - they just enjoy the physical and metaphorical experience of standing at the highest point in the city/world.
If overcrowding is really a problem, the Nepali government can fix it very easily by raising the permit prices and using the money to provide better social services for its disadvantaged citizens. And of course, when that happens, the same people who complain about not seeing the appeal in climbing Everest, will instead complain about how Everest should be made accessible to everyone.
Climb during the winter. Of course, this is significantly more challenging. Many of the first winter ascents of 8000+ meter peaks weren't until the 80s, 90s, or even 2000s for some peaks.
Unlikely. As per the article due to weather conditions there may only be a few windows of opportunities to make the summit which results in the queues.
Worth noting that the photo that sparked all this controversy the last week is continually used w/out credit / compensation to it's owner (looks like NYT got it through Getty), but overall - incredible how many outlets aren't adhering to normal journalistic standards.
Apparently there are only two to three days per year when the weather is favorable enough for ascent. This queue only happens two or three times a year, not everyday. So these crowds happen twice or thrice per year.
The way picture is circulated it’s as if this were a daily occurrence ala Mount Fuji.
That said, this is perfect opportunity to set a limit, have a lottery system and charge an additional non trivial fee for the final summit push.
The type of person that wants to climb Everest is what I refer to as "Checklisters". They have a list of things they want to do so that they can impress others and they run through that list collecting prestige points.
Its the same empty emotion as greed. And just like greed it is a bottomless pit where it is never enough.
Because of that, when someone tells me they did something like climb Everest, I instantly write them off as a very shallow person that only cares about what other people think of them.
Hmmm, I keep a list of things I want to do. Like poke lava with a stick, attend a rocket launch, visit meteor crater, write a tool used by a million people. I don't see it as necessarily bad to have a checklist. It helps manage time.
That picture with that waiting line to the summit, up to 1.000 feet long according to the article, has something weirdly dystopian to it, just like this whole story.
If remote and hostile places like this are already suffering from "overcrowding" due to tourism, then I'm not very optimistic the rest of the planet will fare any better in dealing with the unchecked human population growth and all of its consequences.
It’s the most well known climbing destination, not just a “remote and hostile” place. It speaks to the end of the normal distribution curve for experiences/social signalling like this.
Pretty much everyone in North America and I’m sure Europe and most other countries have heard of Mount Everest since they were a kid.
It’s height may be one of the most commonly known facts in the world.
Not many other tourist destinations have that level of global recognition. Regardless of the difficulty. The difficulty probably only adds to it’s allure and humane are biologically hard wired to seek hard challenges.
It’s not too hard to figure out.
The good news is that there are thousands of other mountains around the world so there will never be a shortage to climb... unlike most natural wonders.
What it boils down to is that there used to be a lot of status given to Everest climbers, inducing the same type of awe that we gave people who've landed on the moon or who won an Olympic gold medal.
Unfortunately, not all of this reverence for Everest climbers has disappeared (yet) and unlike those other categories climbing this mountain could be commoditized, turning it into a simple money transaction at this point (yes sure, you still have to endure some hardship to climb Everest.)
There is diminished reverence in the climbing community because of the traffic. Everest climbers no longer need many basic climbing skills, from fixing pro to route finding. K2 is the new Everest.
In 1996, when the disaster on Everest results in 8 deaths, it cost participants about $65000 to be hauled to the top by "guides". Some 23 years later, that price is probably close to one hundred grand and the mountain is more crowded than before suggesting cost is not a factor here.
It's the increase in permitting as well. I should have stated that above - raise prices + put limits on # of permits issued.
Also - as the article mentioned - gear is better - so it's not as physically treacherous for the avg climber. That said - when things turn bad - you end up with people that shouldn't be up there in the first place.
This is a great idea. They want the experience, but also status for the achievement. Well, it just got harder! Everybody wins, except those weak mortals.
The microcosm of the macrocosm - the problems on Everest reflect (not perfectly) the problems (trash, corruption, pollution, greed, etc.) everywhere on Earth, that both on Everest and elsewhere are increasing in magnitude and scope.
I dabble in mountaineering, mostly in the Cascades, it’s an amazing sport.
Everest has an appeal to it of course but the last few years that has dropped to zero. I can’t imagine what it would be like to get stuck in a line like that at the summit.
I’m trying to think of a fair solution here, because there are a lot of moving parts.
Lower the number of permits / raise prices of legitimate permits too much and the black market flourishes. Not to mention the people who work in that sector of Nepalese tourism suffer greatly.
Maybe a fitness test, or proof of past mountaineering experience. But that again seems to open up another can of worms.
It seems that Jon Krakauer's 1997 book "Into Thin Air" about the 1996 disaster that resulted in 8 deaths on Everest has encouraged people to go rather than acting as a warning.
I think it's amazing that technology and economic incentives allow this kind of absurdity to occur. The story invokes serious cognitive dissonance along with strong emotions of disgust and competitive angst. Visiting Niagara Falls and the Grand Canyon were serious undertakings at some point before they were turned into roadside attractions. The challenges today seem to be the base of the Mariana Trench and Mars while Everest is relegated to the status of Tinder date talking point.
From looking at that ridiculous pic of the people lined up to reach the top of Everest, I gather that it’s much less of a challenge than it used to be.
So what are the people who really want to challenge themselves doing nowadays? (Besides writing JavaScript on the server)
Run a four minute mile. Seems easy? It has been achieved by far, far fewer people than summitting Everest. Best thing is it will cost you some shoes and if you want to get fancy, a GPS watch.
It's not professional guides and sherpas anymore, it's an industry. The summit became a pure management problem. The recent "Everest" movie described it very well.
The historical significance that crossing the Atlantic represents precedes the reputation temporarily handed to it by climate activists. But someone taking a cruise ship from Europe to the US is still no new Christopher Columbus.
I understand your fascination, but whatever reward there was in climbing Mt. Everest has already been given to Tenzing and Hillary. Let me therefore rephrase my question: what reward for mankind is there today in climbing Mt. Everest?
I'm not fascinated. I'm simply trying to convey to you an obvious fact about human nature.
I'm simply saying there's a reason why people visit the great wall of China even though they can simply see a picture of it on the internet for free. It's the historical significance of the site. Same for the reason why people visit the summit of everest. It's that freaking simple.
Let me answer your rephrased question. There is no reward for mankind for climbing everest. None. zilch. That simple. There wasn't even a reward for Tenzing and Hillary to climb it. There's no real reward for going to the moon either. Sure you can talk about research and science for the moon landing but the cost outweighed the benefits by several hundred billion. Thus logically there's no way we went to the moon for science. Likely we went to the moon to be better than the Russians.
All I'm saying is whatever it is that drove the first people to the moon and the first people to the summit of mount Everest is the same thing that's driving tourists to the top of Mt Everest. Get it? It costs 50k to go up now so why the heck not?
I am literally trying to explain human psychology to you, I am not overly fascinated by summiting Mt. Everest, going to the moon or Human achievement. I am just illustrating to you and giving you perspective on what this thing is that is making people go there DESPITE zero reward. Because zero reward for climbing everest is the obvious answer to your question. Your real question is why the heck are people doing this Despite zero benefit to mankind.
The snarkiness to my answer is that even this question has an obvious answer. Ever been on a vacation to a famous landmark? Ever hike to the top of a summit for no reason? Well if you did, then you know the answer.
Right and I obviously didn't know this thanks for illustrating this new and exciting fact.
Obviously climbing a mountain is much more trivial then going to the moon. Additionally, climbing everest is now a really touristy activity that basically anyone can do... But this wasn't always the case. Everest use to be a huge unattainable challenge and finally reaching the summit was a historical achievement. Now summitting everest has been commercialized to the point where any man can do it. But the cultural artifact still exists in a way. It still holds the reputation of being a milestone for humanity... the difference now is for ONLY 50k you can achieve this milestone too! (tm)
Ultimately I wait for the day when tourism to the moon becomes so commercialized, disgusting, cheap and fake that someone literally comes to HN and asks the question:
What's the reward for going to another planet?
and to this I respond:
What's the reward for going to another star?
and some other snarky commenter says:
There is a significant difference in nearly every thinkable aspect between an astronaut conquering another star and a tourist going to visit some planet.
And I'll retort:
Right and I obviously didn't know this thanks for illustrating this new and exciting fact.
Obviously going to another planet is much more trivial then going to alpha centuari. Additionally, going to another planet is now a really touristy activity that basically anyone can do... But this wasn't always the case. Visiting other planets use to be a huge unattainable challenge and finally reaching another one was a historical achievement. Now going to another planet has been commercialized to the point where any man can do it. But the cultural artifact still exists in a way. It still holds the reputation of being a milestone for humanity... the difference now is for ONLY 50k you can achieve this milestone too! (tm)
Ultimately I wait for the day when light speed travel to other stars becomes so commercialized, disgusting, cheap and fake that someone literally comes to HN and asks the question:
> Right and I obviously didn't know this thanks for illustrating this new and exciting fact.
There is no reason to be that sarcastic, obviously we are talking about different things. You are talking about the historical achievement that climbing Mt. Everest was. I am not disputing that. What I am asking is whether there is any reward in climbing this mountain today.
If you didn't catch it... My answer is, yes. The historical significance of summiting Mt. Everest will never go away. That is in itself the reward. That's why people visit famous places and iconic landmarks for vacation. This will always overshadow some internet article criticizing it as a tourist trap.
Also See:
Great wall of china, Pyramids of Giza, etc, etc.
Those use to be the reasons the first summitters of everest use to give for their reasoning. But we both know, you can just send a probe. We both know that these are not the main reasons why we sent a man to the moon.
I'm not sure what the appeal of Everest really is anymore now that it's been so developed. I've known people with minimal (as in, hiked up Mount Rainier and some other mountains that are totally achievable for normal people of okay fitness) climbing experience that climbed Everest. I wonder what it'd be if they mandated that people had to climb at least one other or two other 8 thousanders before climbing Everest. It'd probably cut down on the total traffic, while simultaneously generating even more revenue for Nepal as would-be Everest climbers now need to do one or two extra climbs.