|
LogicaL Chaos
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs




Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 69,598
Loc: The Inexpressible...
Last seen: 1 minute, 52 seconds
|
Re: It costs 65K give or take to climb Mount Everest [Re: GrimTroll]
#26017212 - 05/27/19 09:32 PM (4 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GrimTroll said: Sweet, I want a live update counter!
Should make a website, for the sole purpose of counting them; with grim music, and an animated background on loop of the mountain during miserable weather.
Too soon bro. Too soon
|
GrimTroll
Cultural Terrorist



Registered: 10/15/06
Posts: 1,255
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 3 months, 6 days
|
Re: It costs 65K give or take to climb Mount Everest [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
#26017326 - 05/27/19 11:11 PM (4 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LogicaL Chaos said:
Quote:
GrimTroll said: Sweet, I want a live update counter!
Should make a website, for the sole purpose of counting them; with grim music, and an animated background on loop of the mountain during miserable weather.
Too soon bro. Too soon 
k
-------------------- Now pick me up night and whirlwind and let me ride with you to peace of mind and nothing to rebel...
|
sh4d0ws
LSx


Registered: 02/26/08
Posts: 12,086
|
Re: It costs 65K give or take to climb Mount Everest [Re: GrimTroll]
#26017343 - 05/27/19 11:33 PM (4 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
That lineup to the summit looks like they took a detour to disneyland
Wtf
|
Freakofnature
Stranger

Registered: 04/25/15
Posts: 156
Loc: South Aus
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: It costs 65K give or take to climb Mount Everest [Re: sh4d0ws] 4
#26017651 - 05/28/19 06:12 AM (4 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The major problem this year is the cues.
In every other way it looks to have been a very successful season.
Some of the greatest mountaineers are simply people that got lucky time and time again. Keep doing it and eventually that luck runs out. This doesn't detract from their achievements, but any accomplished climber knows this. Granted, a better climber is more likely to succeed but only so much can be controlled. It's why Annapurna being only slightly above 8000m is so damn dangerous. Huge avalanche risk and extremely volatile weather.
People are staying in the 'death zone' far longer than they usually have to this year for obvious reasons, and as far as I'm aware this has caused most, maybe even all of the deaths this year.
A very simple solution would be to ban oxygen tanks. You'd remove 95% of all climbers doing that alone. Very few people can climb Everest without the help of oxygen.
Oxygen tanks also bring about problems if you run out of oxygen. If your body isn't properly acclimatised and you are relying on oxygen, once it runs out you're on a timer towards losing conciousness. It can happen within minutes sometimes.
Another thing to consider with the lack of oxygen is the body loses the ability to produce heat as readily. Not enough oxygen to drive metabolic processes means less heat produced = frostbite.
Nepal probably won't do much about it until we see a disaster of epic proportions as a direct result of overcrowding. It brings a huge amount of money to poor regions, even if the locals receive an appallingly low percentage of the take.
This really just feels like a symptom of the curse that is social media and our ever increasing population.
Everything is becoming overcrowded.
I respect the hell out of climbers and don't see them as crazy. The views, the adrenaline, the flow you feel when climbing is an amazing thing. I'd climb Everest for the views alone personally.
Standing at elevation and seeing mountains of unbelievable scale is the pinnacle of life to some.
Everest does seem to have the problem of attracting the 'wrong' types though. Ease of access, being the tallest, it's very comfortable compared to the basic base camps you'll find at other mountains and relatively low risk.
I have far more respect for climbers who tackle lesser known peaks. Sure the ego is often involved in climbing to varying degrees, but very few people would have the persistence to suffer as much as you need to to climb an 8000er for nothing more than bragging rights. There's more to it.
Edited by Freakofnature (05/28/19 06:40 AM)
|
Niffla



Registered: 06/09/08
Posts: 46,762
Loc: Texas
|
Re: It costs 65K give or take to climb Mount Everest [Re: Freakofnature]
#26018078 - 05/28/19 11:03 AM (4 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freakofnature said: The major problem this year is the cues.
In every other way it looks to have been a very successful season.
Some of the greatest mountaineers are simply people that got lucky time and time again. Keep doing it and eventually that luck runs out. This doesn't detract from their achievements, but any accomplished climber knows this. Granted, a better climber is more likely to succeed but only so much can be controlled. It's why Annapurna being only slightly above 8000m is so damn dangerous. Huge avalanche risk and extremely volatile weather.
People are staying in the 'death zone' far longer than they usually have to this year for obvious reasons, and as far as I'm aware this has caused most, maybe even all of the deaths this year.
A very simple solution would be to ban oxygen tanks. You'd remove 95% of all climbers doing that alone. Very few people can climb Everest without the help of oxygen.
Oxygen tanks also bring about problems if you run out of oxygen. If your body isn't properly acclimatised and you are relying on oxygen, once it runs out you're on a timer towards losing conciousness. It can happen within minutes sometimes.
Another thing to consider with the lack of oxygen is the body loses the ability to produce heat as readily. Not enough oxygen to drive metabolic processes means less heat produced = frostbite.
Nepal probably won't do much about it until we see a disaster of epic proportions as a direct result of overcrowding. It brings a huge amount of money to poor regions, even if the locals receive an appallingly low percentage of the take.
This really just feels like a symptom of the curse that is social media and our ever increasing population.
Everything is becoming overcrowded.
I respect the hell out of climbers and don't see them as crazy. The views, the adrenaline, the flow you feel when climbing is an amazing thing. I'd climb Everest for the views alone personally.
Standing at elevation and seeing mountains of unbelievable scale is the pinnacle of life to some.
Everest does seem to have the problem of attracting the 'wrong' types though. Ease of access, being the tallest, it's very comfortable compared to the basic base camps you'll find at other mountains and relatively low risk.
I have far more respect for climbers who tackle lesser known peaks. Sure the ego is often involved in climbing to varying degrees, but very few people would have the persistence to suffer as much as you need to to climb an 8000er for nothing more than bragging rights. There's more to it.
Great post.
--------------------
HAIL OUR NEW OTD KING
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,329
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 1 minute, 40 seconds
|
Re: It costs 65K give or take to climb Mount Everest [Re: Niffla]
#26018123 - 05/28/19 11:25 AM (4 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Queues*
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
|