I dont know this topic, but why is this "deep corruption"?

Imagine summiting the highest mountain, while being physically carried, as being socially acceptable and widespread. is it to a benefit or to a harm for the idea of summiting? Corruption is unnecessary dimensions added to the thing, which destroy and devalue its essence.

This is highly subjective. It's worth phrasing it as such.

>Imagine summiting the highest mountain, while being physically carried, as being socially acceptable and widespread. is it to a benefit or to a harm for the idea of summiting?

It is lame and sucks, but it isnt corruption, right?

They are corrupting the sport of alpinism.

Modern alpinism, as pioneered by the likes of Messner, is quite recent. Heck Norgay and Hillary were among the first travelling light, everyone else before them had expeditions rooted in colonial tradition. Compared to those, people being carrid up Mt. Everest are actually travelling eith almost nothing. And they manage to get up that summit, by paying Sherpas more than anyone else before that.

Not defend the practice, it is pathetic, but it is hardly corruption since it is clear people being carried up hardly qualify as alpinists to begin with.

So, you are generally advising against the use of local guides? And propose to cut the sherpas out of the considerable Mt. Everest business all together? Why?

Is that what the poster is saying? No, and you know it. Just call it for what it is: assisted climbing. The persons didn't climb the mountain in a sense of the sport, they were assisted.

You can't claim you ran a marathon if you hitched a ride along the way.

>> normalizing using sherpas is deep corruption

Said OP. I was not aware that climbing Mt. Everest was followijg some competitive sports rule set.

As others pointed out, people being carried up there are rightfully ridiculed by the alpinist community. Using Sherpas is a way that local communities can actually benefit a little bit from rich people's tourism. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Some kind of purist attitude? Marathon runners run the whole way, but a community of support accompanied them for years beforehand (and on the actual route!)

Likewise, nobody is using a sedan chair to get to the summit. Everybody walks every step of the way?

Well, not everyone. Sally Pittman was short roped for a few hours by a Sherpa. But still an achievement for her to reach the top. So your overall point is well taken.

> Some kind of purist attitude?

Absolutely! That is what sports, exploration and alpinism is about. People who had others to carry their stuff do not deserve to be mentioned together with those who climb by their own force.

I've always found it ridiculous reading articles about this or that adventurer who conquered a mountain or peak, or the local alpinist who's back from climbing Everest - then as a side note "by the way, some sherpas carried all his/her stuff".

I'm from a society where stolen valour is the norm, not the exception. For any accomplishment there will always be persons from certain families or a certain political party put forward and given all the merit and glory in media for the accomplishment, while those who actually did the work are to stay in the shadows and be quiet.

Last year I watched the documentary "14 Peaks" where Nepalese led by Nirmal Purja where setting some mountaineering records as climbers, and they were extremely bitter for the lack of recognition, which I fully understand. Corruption is the right word.

The really disgusting bit is not the favt of being carried up a mountain, it is the neglect of giving the local guides the credit they deserve. Last time i bothered to look, Sherpas held all Everest records: number of succesfull ascents, speed, you name it.

That Sherpas, just to pick prominent example as locals in other regions share the same fate, don't get the recognition they deserve is not the people going on paid expeditions. It also the press and media not giving them credit. Basically all succesfull Himalayan expeditions, before Messner started to go full solo, relied on Sherpas or other local groups. Not properly mentioning those incredible mountaineers has a long tradition. One extended, too a much lesser degree, to guides from former Russia (looking at ypu, Krackauer). The Chinese alpinists, and to a lesser extent the Indians as well, defy that fact somewhat by virtue of simply being rich.

* * *

* * *

Yeah, climbing one of those mountains without oxygen is hardcore. Doing it solo is certified badassery.

The problem is not Everest but the people who don't know anything about climbing. Anyone (pretty much) can get up that mountain if they have a large enough convoy of people carrying everything the "climber" needs. Climbing is what you make of it.

Altitude changes and general health of the climber will also determine if they get up the mountain... or back down the mountain. Money doesn't guarantee a successful ascent/descent.

But your chances get much bettee, especially on the ascent leg of the trip!

Eh, not anyone. You have to be in decent shape, have some climbing experience, not be afraid of heights crossing those scary icefall ladders, and have a huge tolerance for discomfort to make it to the top. The low oxygen levels that high are no joke. I would argue running an ultra-marathon is a far easier feat.

Note how I wrote large "enough" for the sake of argument, i.e. this could theoretically be a team of 1000's of people and a budget of many billions. Money can't buy everything, but for an ascent of Everest it can buy a lot.

You can apply this to anything, though. I hope you don't drive a car because that's cheating yourself out of the reality of walking and carrying your own load. Walkers frown at cyclists. Cyclists frown at drivers. There's no doubt someone out there who is disappointed that you don't do your own plumbing. Hiring a plumber is cheating yourself out of reality.

It's not that I don't agree with it being lame, but chasing some kind of "reality" is just as lame too. Should you summit without oxygen too? Without a map? On your own? At what point does it become "real"?