Would you walk past?

Bravo! Very well said! Though speaking for myself, I travel in the mountains not so much to conquer them as much as to engage nature in a manner in which my safety depends on my judgement and subsequent action.

For me, the notion of "conquering," with its implication of victory over, does not adequately acknowledge the fact that successfully meeting a goal in any hazardous environment is at least in part of matter of luck. If effort and skill meet favorable conditions, we bask in success. If effort and skill meet extreme conditions, we use judgement to decide whether to go forward. If we go and succeed, in our minds eye we are 'tenacious.' Others may see us as 'courageous' or 'stupid'. Going forward into the blizzard can also lead to our untimely demise if all the little contingencies stack up against us.

I go partly for the opporunity to make those decisions and manage my response to those contingencies. Most of the time, I operate well within a comfortable margin of safety ("live to wimp again")- and reasonably able to handle the "stuff happens" scenarios. But the charge comes from judging the factors that provide the margin.

It's almost cliche, but the 'situational awareness' that defines safety also super-charges my sensitivity to beauty. Ultimately – I go to fully, deeply notice the play of light on the hills and wind in the grass. When I successfully 'plug-in' there is a spiritual connection that fuels happiness for months or even years. I have a memory of a cold wet day on a river in Maine, kneeling on the shore of a rapid enraptured by the way tall grass nodded when hit by rain drops. 20 years later and I can go right back. That's the real 'why' for me. I've never found anything that expresses it better than the "navajo prayer" –

With Beauty before me, there may I walk.
With Beauty behind me,there may I walk.
With Beauty above me, there may I walk.
With Beauty below me, there may I walk.
With Beauty all around me, there may I walk.
In Beauty it is finished.

As far as the ethics of the specific situation on Everest, I think it wise not to judge. The first thing that emegency response folks learn to do is assess the situation before attempting the rescue. While the scenario presents a picture that seems heartless and unethical at face value, it is one that is based on written accounts that are at best incomplete, about an environment that is difficult to imagine if you haven't been there (I have not). If rescue was possible and climbers went past because they cared only about their $60K investment, may they roast for eternity. It sounds more likely that successful rescue was all but impossible and the attempt very dangerous, and they exercised judgement in a difficult situation.

I've been contemplating a response….or whether to respond since I read the first post several days ago.

First the disclaimer. I'm a hiker and I do it because I enjoy being in the woods, I enjoy spending time with my wife (we hike together) and I enjoy the satisfaction I gain by physically pushing my body and my mind. My hiking style definately is not the picture of "living on the edge". I do it because I enjoy the act and the physical and mental benefit I receive from it….period.

Now to answer the questions….NO, I absolutely could not and would not walk by. The fine line for me in the described situation is dead vs. dying. Even knowing that the person was going to die I would feel compelled to stay until they had passed. Even though they knew the potential risks and consequences of their climb they don't deserve to die alone.

Steve

12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:12-13

I understand the discussion of risk and responsibility, but where the rubber meets the road, I have no doubts. When we meet on the trail, I survive or die with you. I have no choice, for it is written. So, please be careful out there.

5/14/06 David Sharp attempts and collapses.
5/15/06 David Sharp is lucid enough to talk when the film crew arrives.
source

Sir Edmund Hillary disagreed with the decision not to help a fellow climber.

What followed 10 days later was a miracle or perhaps a reminder from our creator.

5/25/06 Lincoln Hall was left for dead in the death zone.
5/26/06 Lincoln Hall is found alive, knows his name and believes he is on a boat ride. Days later he would walk off the mountain.
source

Dan Mazur and his two team members failed in their bid to summit Everest. Their success was in a more important area.

Now, knowing this second story, would you walk past?

The Everest News story is compelling. I do not personally buy into the notion that one must sacrifice ones life to aid another who has little or no chance of survival (I'd call it suicide – which has its own set of ethical questions).

However, I absolutely do agree that we are called on to give aid whenever possible. Where the boundary between the possible and suicidal lies is (in my opinion) extremely difficult to second guess – but the story does calls into doubt whether passersby were at that point. If that's the case, I can only hope that there is some validity in the notion of karmic justice.

The story about David Mazur's party points to what I would expect of myself and others. Doing what can be done – short of I've always harbored a secret hope that the beauty of the mountains is in some way enriches the soul. I reckon maybe not everybody's…

The next time I run into this situation, I think I will save the life of every Super Concientious Uber Self Sacrificing person who comes after me by packing snow onto the face of the incapacitated climber to make sure he looks utterly, 100% dead. I will take the guilt, and achieve a goal within reach, rather than die trying to reach an impossible star.

The Hillary interview was really insightful. I suppose being from and educated in a different era he has a definite perspective. As do some of the great personalities on this board. I am sure the feelings are geniune if not a little verbose given the nature of the topic. It is very powerful….and I still hold that no matter how well you think you know yourself or the situation now, most would fall to the average of really deciding if their was a good chance they would die trying…they would hedge not to.

The whole deciding not to waste ones $45,000 investment on a death mission, or using a cell phone really get's under Hillary's skin. (Can't say I totally blame him) He cannot relate to the reality at all. The whole process has probably become pretty disgusting to him and I am sure he already hates Windows Vista.

I am starting to believe the Nepalese government needs some marketing 101 help. A traffic jam means only that the price is too low. The amputee gentleman figured that out already. Less quantity and higher margins generates the same income…while increasing safety. Pretty soon you will be able to choose from climbing the "roof of the world" or going into a space orbit…if you have the cash. And don't worry, it is 100% safe and sterilized for ya.

Sir Edmund Hillary..there is a name I know, he and Norgay were the first to summit Everest.
'Dan Mazur'; don't recognize that one.. maybe because he got distracted and didn't summit.
100 years from now the difference in recognizion will be the same. That's a cold reality. Take care of your family, your success, and your legacy first. You can best help others from a position of strength.

If I could help without sacrificing my own strategic goals, or life, I would.

Brett, after reading your other posts on this thread, I think that we’re in about the same place, though this one leaves me with questions. I think that you've put this right where it belongs, which is in the context of ethics.

– What does name recognition have with doing what is right (and yes I am willing to claim that there is a right)?

– What legacy would you be taking care of in this situation?

– How do you define success in this situation?

– What are your strategic goals and why are they relevant?

What's fascinating to me about this thread is that it's really all about ethics – almost to the point of being an archetypal story. The question of whether there is a separate set of "rules" at play in high-risk environments in general is interesting – they tend to generate our tales of the heroic, and these often involve the length to which we will go to help others. My own opinion is that there is no such "higher moral imperative" at play – rather there are situations with consequences that are much starker and more complicated than average.

You're right – we don't know for sure what we would do until we are there. However – the way we think things through ahead of time is essentially practice. I prefer to reherse being Dan Mazur…hopefully I'd feel better telling my kids that story than how I stepped over a dying guy on the way to the summit. It's a sad but true fact of human existance that we seem capable of sacrificing life for ambition. The only silver lining in that cloud is that when the story comes out, the antagonists are usually harshly judged as ugly.

I reckon I am willing to judge the actions of others – against a few standards. The first is did they do wrong? I would judge allowing someone to die when it is in your power to provide aid to be wrong. It is not perfectly clear that this is what occurred, but it is apparent that some very experienced climbers feel that it is.

Robert

If you are serious….

I just want to say THANK YOU for cementing my view of a large percentage of U.S. Society today. In my opinion our society is full to the brim with self-serving dinks who's only goal is to win, win, win at any cost. Let the door slam shut on the guy behind me so I can get my order in at Starbucks….rather than doing the polite thing and hold it open. Hold up traffic because I'm having an important cell-phone conversation with god-only-knows-who at 6:30 in the morning on the way to work.

Sympathy and compassion are for the most part gone in our society and have been replaced by "Second place = first loser!"

If you were not serious….then….well….never mind!

Steve

You know me so well. The problem is, even with my ruthless attitude, I'm not vicious enough to get into politics.

Please remember that when rescuing someone it is very important that you should not increase the number of people that need to be rescued and/or dead.

I think it is terribly unfortunate that David Sharp did not survive his climb of Everest. But I can't help think that more climbers/sherpas might have died trying to rescue him. He was a very large man (description on the show), very high on Everest.

The rescue of Lincoln Hall by Dan Mazur's party and a large number of sherpas was a miracle. But I can't help wonder what popular opinion would have been if Dan Mazur or several of the Sherpa's had died during the rescue attempt. My guess is that the team leader that coordinated the rescue would have been blamed for attempting a suicide rescue mission.

But Lincoln Hall did survive, David Sharp did not, Dan Mazur is a hero and those that walked past are ridiculed while we Monday Morning Quarterback from the safety of our homes.

I will always look out for my own safety, but I will help those in need without compromising my own safety. I would not care if I missed out on a goal of mine if I was able to save a life. And Everest is not one of my goals…

Kirk

Robert

I wasn't saying you were one of "those people".

I was meerly making the generalization that there are plenty of folks out there as I described.

If I knew for a fact that you were a self-serving dink….I would call you a self-serving dink….I'm not shy.:-)

Steve

Not only am I a self-serving dink, I teach my children to be the same way. I have a running philosophical battle with that Do-Gooder, Bleading Heart, PJ, as a previous post of mine demonstrates: "PJ, there you go again. First you offer to help out a young man with a BPL membership, then you have the audacity to actually praise cottage industries that provide generous help to their customers. You are making me look bad in front of my children, and, oh yeah, the wifie, too. I teach my little ankle nippers to look out for the greatest number, which is Number One. Both your actions and your pronouncements are UNDERMINING THE EDUCATION OF MY CHILDREN!"

Everest is not the deadliest mountain by a long shot; fatality-wise it is number ten on the list of fourteen 8,000+ mountains. Recent numbers put the dead tool at around 2% (since 2000; the overall fatality rate since the beginning is around 9%). Compare that to Annapurna (8,091 m) with an overall fatality rate of 41% (130 climbers have summited, 53 have died) and Everest begins to look a lot easier.

I'm not a mountaineer, I'm a hiker. The closest I have been to Everest is to base camp I on the Tibetan side. Someday I would like to get back there and hike to base camp IV at around 7,000 meters. I believe that the experience would let me lose myself in the mountain, without losing my soul in what has become a repulsive business. There is so much selfish ambition, greed from climbers and guides alike, thefts, bad guides, filth, and the already mentioned lack of care for human life, that the only way I can see of having an spiritual experience at the summit would be from hallucinations due to lack of oxygen.

Just to give an idea of how bad it has gotten, way up on the mountain people would go as far as to sell you bad oxygen bottles…