I just finished reading Jon Krakauer's Book "Into Thin Air" about the tragedy that struck the commercial expeditions of Rob Hall and Scott Fischer in 1996on Mt. Everest. 12 people from these groups died as the result of a storm that was not really an unusual event. My question is why? <br><br> Do we have some Mountain climber's here that can explain this to me? I used to do mild climbs because they were fun and great exercise (strenuous hikes using pitons really). It was clear in this book that NO ONE has fun climbing Everest or anywhere if you are above 25,000 feet( the death zone). It is simply a matter of if you can endure the horrendous pain that you are voluntarily subjecting yourself to and if your body can endure the severe insult you are inflicting upon it. <br><br>In such a climb, If everything goes PERFECTLY, you return from an 8 week period of hell in a state of total and complete exhaustion and dehydration. If at the top altitudes on such a climb you get in trouble there is no hope of rescue. No heliocopters( at that altitude of course) and no one is going to be able to carry you out because it is all they can do at that altitude and under those conditions to get themselves down the mountain(even using supplementary oxygen). In fact, when someone dies near the summit, the body is left there because there is no way to evacuate it. It is apparently not uncommon for climbers to simply pass by the dead (and dying!!!!!) bodies of climbers who preceeded them on their way (and in their ardor) to reach the summit without undertaking any action to attempt a rescue. If someone acted with such disregard for others (and themselves) after crash landing a plane at 25,000 feet, such behavior would be violently condemned.<br>When I think of the lives that could be saved if these climbers used their skills and expertise in rescue efforts, it seems almost obscene to see these people voluntarily and intentionally subject themselves to certain and extreme pain, probable injury and possible death to no one's benefit. It would be wonderful and courageous to attempt such a climb to rescue a downed pilot at 29,000. It seems foolhardy and selfish to go there otherwise. If someone subjected themselves to such self-abuse at sea level they would certainly be considered mentally incompetent. <br>Having just finished the book, I guess I am a little angry that men and women, all having loved ones-- some with young families, died (basically killed themselves ) to prove something. WHAT? <br>I do not mean to disparage anyone here who engages in this extreme conduct, but I certainly do not understand it. If you do understand it, please share that with me. <br><br>Robb

It's called hubris. What they also fail to mention is the even higher death rate of the Nepalese Sherpas. Then there are piles of abandoned equipment and denuded woodlands in the foothills ( a major problem regionwide, partially countered by reforestation efforts and a manure powered electrical generator invented by an acquaintance.) I was at a party with one of these characters. He bungee jumped, he skydived, he was a ironman competitor etc. etc. Finally he asked another guest what he did for fun." Oh, Im a reconstructive surgeon with doctors without borders and made $250,000 last year off people like you with bad gene combinants. Thats a nice transplant, Bosley Medical Group, right?" He was short, balding and utterly unassuming. Guess who the women gravitated to? : No, it wasn't me ;O(

I guess if the ultimate goal in life was to stay safe, we would all wear helmets and never leave the house. Everybody balances safety with other aspirations, some taking one or the other to an extreme.<br><br>The thrill-seekers are an interesting crowd. Your question reminded me of a quote I read on hostels.com from a Guatemalan park ranger:<br><br>"Why do Americans build such high buildings and always want to climb to the top of everything?"

I probably shouldn’t respond to this one, not being a climber of any sort.. but.. “because it’s there”?<br><br>Once, many years ago on a business trip to Portland, Oregon in the summer, I was sitting with a co-worker sipping drinks at a table in the sun overlooking the river, with a view of Mt. Hood in one direction and what was left of Mt. St. Helens in another. He asked me whether I liked the area enough to consider living there, and I said I did, but I didn’t know if I could look at Mt. Hood every day of my life without having to climb it at some point. He looked at me as though I’d just said I really came from Venus. Some people feel the need more than others; some don’t feel it at all.<br><br>I’ve often said that in centuries to come, the only thing that most people are likely to remember about the 20th Century, if anything, is that we made it to the moon (name 2 important dates in the 1400’s. If you can name one.. that's my point.). Somewhere along the line, though, I’d bet some future historian or student is going to read about our period, and be amazed at how very few years elapsed between the time that a man first stood at the highest point on his own planet, and the time that he made it off of his planet altogether to set foot on it’s moon. After so many thousands or millions of years, it all happened in a couple of decades… in historical terms, almost the same instant... like one step after another.<br><br>And maybe it’s not altogether a coincidence.<br>

Is it human nature? What really, do we have to prove? i mean, wow you climbed a huge mountain! ( not sutibal to sustain any human life at all.. there for it being pointless). Are they trying to leave a legacy? how in any way would this impact there future generation? sure it is something to be remembered by, but.... mmmmmm...... doughnuts......

I do not think of myself as a "Mountain Climber" in the way I think you meant it, 'tho I have climbed mountains (real mountains, not piles of naked rock). I don't think everyone who does that stuff fits in the same mold. Some are true adventurers. Some are total jerks (not too many that I have seen). Others fit in neither group. And I cannot explain the "dudes" at all, because I truly don't have a clue about the motivations behind hiring an "expert" to "guide" one - that's not an indictment; I simply do not understand.<br><br>I think I do understand the adventurers, but I don't think I can explain it in words. Remind me not to tell you about some of my trips <grin>...<br><br>FWIW, my notes and recollections from hypobaric (?sp? - long time ago) chamber experiences leads me to conclude that something more like 20,000 feet starts weeding people out very fast. A surprising number of folks cease to function effectively by then - with some folks it is subtle and with others it's very obvious. I recall very few disfunctional folks that remembered it like it was - many had to be shown video tapes of themselves before they believed what they were told about their behavior. It gets worse very rapidly with increased altitude. Has nothing to do with "being tough" but I dunno about being in shape - all the vols were in great condition. We used the hyperbaric chamber to weed out potential team members for a high altitude rescue team as well as establish some other non-trivial individual information (like who needed to start prophylaxis when and how long that was effective). Anyway, serious altitude problems happen to a surprising number of folks before 25k. No telling who will be affected - very Darwinian.<br><br>Interesting questions you raised. Wish I knew/could explain the answer(s).<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Tom

The short answer is "different strokes for different folks." I enjoy climbing, despite (or perhaps, because of, being scared s***less on more than one occasion). On the other hand, I don't see what other folks get out of mortorcycle riding - for my taste it is far too hazardous for whatever rewards are present. The mountains are extremely beautiful, and an extremely challenging environment. It appeals to some sufficient for them to put up with the sacrifices and hazards. Same logic for boaters, cavers, or marathon runners.<br><br>For all of that, there is a change in climbing that I find disturbing. There are cases in the 50s and 60s, the "Golden Age" of Himalayan cl;imbing, of expeditions halting upon the death of one of their members and/or Sherpas. That was before the present commercialization of the standard trade routes on the major peaks. Remeber that the climbers on Everest were paying about $50,000 apiece for the trip in guide fees alone. I must admit that trudging up Everest past dead bodies on the summit ridge would take the edge off John Muir's "Climb the mountains and get their good tiding" philosophy.<br><br>Just for the record, I have never been anywhere Everest. A trip up Orizaba and an attempt on Denali are about it for me in terms of anything significantly high. I have really enjoyed poking around mountains and ranges in the Southwest that never get written up in best sellers (hopefully).

Perhaps it isn't about proving anything or being courageous. There are many good reasons to attempt to do something that hasn't been done before and presents a challenge. Whether it is speed skating faster than anyone, creating an electric light bulb, climbing the highest peaks, or meditatively exploring the nature of god.<br><br>The limits of a humans mind and body have not yet been found. Finding them is a worthy endeavor. The ability of a man to climb to the top of Mount Washington may prove to that man many things but it educates the human race in ways that reach beyond the life of that man and the meaning of whatever he proved to himself and the fame that he may have garnered in proving that. The nylon rainsuit, the northface tent, gortex, ice-climbing techniques used in your less challenging lower altitude entertainment, understanding of the effects of atmospheric conditions on the body that have allowed safer air travel - these all owe their development to the unquenchable thirst and curiosity that humans have to find the limits - extend the limits of their bodies and minds. Like it or not, understand it or not, you must admit that we all want to know what we can do. To find out personally what our limits and abilities are in relationship to our surroundings. For some of us this is beat out of us by the mind-numbing social process called schooling by the age of 17 or earlier but we are all born with this need to find the boundary between what we can influence and what we cannot and between what is me and what is not. This is one of the primary drivers of all achievement. Is the achievement of plastic puke that is authentic enough to cause naseua in the average audience any more worthy or less worthy than the summiting of everest? I would suggest that both were, at one point and in some senses, the same in that they were the focused goal of an individual human and in achieveing either understanding of the world and understanding of our human capacity and wisdom was advanced. Is either a current goal of mine - no. Are there risks in achieving anything yes. failure in achieving plastic puke probably didn't kill anyone outright but there were probably many chemical concoctions that were attempted that would qualify as hazardous waste. We either allow this curiosity to drive us onward in the great experiment of progress or we imitate the amish at whatever level of progress we are comfortable with and say "this is good but no more".

Hi Robb,<br><br>I agree with you. I am not inspired by tales of people who intentionally put themselves in dangerous situations (or make a safe situation into a dangerous one) for no good reason other than their own ego gratification. Life is dangerous enough as it is without us trying to make it more so. While, I don't consider mountain climbing an inherently dangerous activity, there are always those people that go to far and just don't feel "alive" unless they are killing themselves. Go figure!<br><br>This one of the reasons I can't stand TV's "Survivor" series. 30 people stuck alone in the wilderness with nothing but a Producer, a Director, Camera crews, caterers, EMT staff, rescue helicopter and the hope of a media tour to help them survive. Give me a break. The only survival skill these people have is stabbing each other in the back and if I wanted to see that I would pay more attention at the office. Now if they really did give those people knives I might start watching. <br><br>You may be interested in Beck Weathers' book "Left For Dead". He was one of the climbers on Everest that year and was left for dead only to later wake up and stumble down to a lower camp. While he did not know it at the time, after he recovered he admits that his climbing obsession was a way of coping with undiagnosed clinical depression. <br><br>The tales I find inspiring are those where people through no fault of their own and despite their best preparations find themselves in difficult or dangerous situations and are left with only their wits to save themselves and the others around them. <br><br>You may enjoy Elizabeth Norman's "We Band Of Angels" about her experiences as a Navy nurse in the Philippines taken prisoner by the Japanese during WWII. Or "In The Heart Of The Sea" by Nathaniel Philbrick about the crew of a 19th century whale boat that was ironically sunk by a whale in the middle of the Pacific and their 3000 mile journey in row boats before being rescued. Or Dr. Jerri Nielsen's "Ice Bound" about her battle with breast cancer while stranded at the south pole. <br><br>Have fun<br>David Koelzer<br>

I don’t mean to make light of your concerns, and this is bound to offend someone’s sensibilities, for which I apologize in advance, but…<br><br>As far as the bodies- those in the death zone would seem likely to remain frozen for a very long time, so long as they remain there. In general, a corpse is in no hurry…<br><br>Wouldn’t it be hugely ironic if, at some far (or, just possibly, not so far) future time, when technologies we can only see dimly from here have made such things possible, we started bringing back bodies from these mountains, not just to let them rot, but to be revived? After all, those areas might be one of the very few places on Earth to go to get cleanly frozen and intact people from the 20th Century, a time before cryogenics became common. If that ever comes to be, then those who’s bodies were “rescued” to rot here in the lowlands will be long gone, forever and irrevocably, and those left on the mountain will see the future.<br><br>Maybe it’s just possible that we wouldn’t be doing them any favors.<br>_________________<br><br>"... for having a very ardent desire to see and observe the state of America a hundred years hence, I should prefer to an ordinary death, being immersed with a few friends in a cask of Madeira until that time, then to be recalled to life by the solar warmth of my dear country. But... in all probability, we live in a century too little advanced, and too near the infancy of science, to see such an art brought in our time to it's perfection."<br><br>Benjamin Franklin, April, 1773<br>__________________<br><br>As for the living- it seems they’re doing what they’re doing freely and of their own will. As far as I know, tax money is not involved (unlike most waste), so I don’t really see that we or anyone else is in a position to tell them how they should, or should not, be spending their resources and their lives. The fact that we wouldn’t make the same choices, or don’t even understand the reasoning behind them, is irrelevant. That’s freedom. <br>