| > And I don't accept the echo-chamber consensus opinion of mountaineers that it's all worth it in the end. I'm not sure what mountaineers you've talked to but most I know don't like the current state of Everest and how its become a tourist attraction. Most I know support the restriction Nepal is considering of restricting permits to those who have climbing experience on other significant peaks. > Honestly, I don't think anyone really has any business up there. Well, no one has any business being up on any mountain; yet we do it. > you can find better, more challenging climbs that are still safer. Yes and no. Though your statement is true I'm not sure you realize how safe Everest is. Everest has about a 4% death to summit ratio. Though its not the lowest rate among the 8000m peaks considering the masses of inexperienced climbers who climb Everest the fact its so low is amazing to me. If Everest was climbed by the same type of people who tackle K2 or Nanga Parbat (26.5% and 20.3% death:summit) I'd imagine the ratio would be significantly lower on Everest. Even so, Everest has a low fatality rate. However, it is also not technically challenging (the challenge is the altitude not the climbing) so because of that finding something more challenging and safer shouldn't be a problem. Its also worth mentioning that there is more than one route up Everest, the Southern Col is the most popular and easiest and thus sees the traffic jams up Lhotse face and at Hillary's Step. Other routes don't see the same traffic. |