The thing about Everest

There has been much ado in the press about the deaths of 16 Sherpa in a large avalanche in Everest’s popcorn field. There is no debate that this is a terrible tragedy, a tragedy from which some of the risks and inequities of mountaineering on Everest were spotlighted.

There was a portion of the Western media that focused on the backlash aimed towards climbers who risk the lives of others to stand on top of the world. This is a fantastic story of exploitation of poor people by rich Westerners wanting a “trophy” by climbing in Nepal. The reality is that dollars brought to the region by mountaineering is the only revenue stream on which the country is able to consistently capitalize. The government is rife with corruption and few of the dollars brought to the region are used for the betterment of the Sherpa community. The money that does go to the Sherpa community is wages paid directly by climbing groups.

Another richly overblown portion of the story is the lack of respect Western climbers have for the work done by the Sherpa. Reading a few trusted sources who actually understand and have experienced climbing there, most notably Alan Arnette and Dr. Sophie Wallace, the stories of disrespect and conflict between Western climbers and the Sherpa community are fabrications.
There are a couple takeaways for me about Everest and the 2014 climbing season:

1. If someone wants to write a story about exploitation, it should start with the Nepalese government. Not unlike many other countries, the true damage done to that country’s people is being done by their own government.

2. Everest is a zoo. While I believe there is near universal respect for the mountain and its people, the reality is Everest is the inextricably linked to mountaineering. As such, nearly anyone who wants to punch their mountaineering card is going to head to Everest. Guide services reflect this trend. Everest has a common trait to all other large mountains: the margin for error is slim. The recent spate of deaths on that mountain have nothing to do with the mountain itself or the inherent risks of mountaineering. The deaths are due to the large number of people who are on the mountain. Referring to number 1, until the Nepalese government restricts who and how many people can be on the mountain, tragedies like this will continue.

3. It sells a lot of newspaper advertising, but the risks mountaineers take to pursue their personal interests are no different than many other personal decisions. Newspapers should write more articles about obesity and smoking, two far more damaging and costly personal decisions than mountaineering. But unfortunately that doesn’t sell as many ads as a fabricated story about risk and death on Everest.

4. Despite Sheila’s ongoing doubt (which is totally justified), I continue to have no interest in climbing Everest. For me the margin of error between life and death is too small there or most other mountains of that size. I want to be able to control my own destiny a bit more than I believe most can during that type of activity. I do however look forward to trekking to Everest to see it with my own eyes as I think this area of the world is absolutely beautiful.

What strikes you the most about this post? Cynicism towards government, towards the press? Specifics about climbing a big mountain? The concept of risk in life?