How is climbing Sagarmatha defensible?
Hey, new here. I know this is provocative!! So (polar) bear with me, I think provocative discussion can be the spice of life.
Like everybody here I am super fascinated by Sagarmatha/Everest, the climbers, all of it. I’m already so excited to read every post in here and get lots of recommendations for books and documentaries. There’s so much information here, which makes me really curious as to why the prevailing stance on climbing it is so positive on here. I’m sure there are other posts like this, though I was having a hard time finding them in searching.
I mean, the thorny ethics, Mother Nature’s indifference, the hubris of people (specifically the rich), the insane risks Sherpas take, the whole class dynamics period, the want for an intimate and profound experience with nature at all costs, the fact that this want turns completely paradoxical as the mass experience causes harm to not only the land but the people who actually live there, the fact that it keeps its dead and then climbers who might join them walk by them — it’s all completely fascinating. And from where I’m standing, the more I read and see, the more certain I am that people shouldn’t be climbing it. At least not like they are now.
I’m genuinely fascinated by the wealth of information here combined with the popular positive view of it. I (polar) bear no ill will toward anyone’s positive views. I’m seriously just super curious and think this could be, if not outright fun, then at least an interesting discussion.
So I ask you:
Do you think climbing Sagarmatha is defensible? If so, why?
Do you think criticisms like any I have mentioned are overblown?
Am I missing something?
Are you flirting with me?
Because I’m flirting with you.