13-year-olds climbing Everest

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Nobody's stopping Jordan Romero from climbing it as an adult. If, when he becomes an adult, he decides the risks are too great, he'd probably thank those who stopped him when he was a kid.

If he doesn't, as an adult, think the risks are too great, then climb away. No doors are being closed, except the entirely spurious and ethically-dubious one about being "the youngest."

[Ben Kenobi]

If his parents approve, why should he be prevented from climbing? His parents are his guardians.

[self biased]

parents aren't allowed to give consent for their children in many instances, such as alcohol consumption, and sex. it could be argued that they're endangering his welfare by allowing him to climb.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

If his parents approve, why should he be prevented from climbing? His parents are his guardians.

His parents are being ****ing irresponsible. His father has had just one death-zone ascent (Nuptse). They aren't using a guide purely so nobody can say "he's too young". They're climbing a more difficult route purely because Nepal won't let kids on Everest. They're using hyperbaric tents in a bid to save money by shortening acclimatisation time, regardless of the fact that a lot of experienced climbers think this is more risky.

Parents aren't always right.

[Dinner]

I find kids often think their parents are wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

His father has had just one death-zone ascent (Nuptse). They aren't using a guide purely so nobody can say "he's too young". They're climbing a more difficult route purely because Nepal won't let kids on Everest. They're using hyperbaric tents in a bid to save money by shortening acclimatisation time, regardless of the fact that a lot of experienced climbers think this is more risky.

Fair enough. These are all good points. If there are no guides willing to take them, then that's not the father's fault. Seems to me the authorities are complicit in preventing him from doing things in the safest fashion.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Well, that's just another "Ben Special." Not worth commenting on at all.

[SlowwHand]

Ben, do you mean that like it reads? The fact that guides won't go makes it not the father's fault? I don't think you meant it that way.

[SlowwHand]

dp

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, do you mean that like it reads? The fact that guides won't go makes it not the father's fault? I don't think you meant it that way.

I should have clarified.

From what I've seen with the Everest guides, is that they are perfectly willing to escort well-paying adults up the mountain, irrespective of their preparation. This has resulted in deaths before. I don't think it's their decision to make whether or not to permit a minor to ascend. It is their decision to decline their services, but I think it's a poor showing that none of them are willing to help.

Yes, the father has the responsibility to protect his child, but that there are no guides willing to take them up, does not mean that the father is responsible for their decision. The decision to climb up the mountain without a guide, yes that is the decision of the father.

Personally, I don't agree with this decision on the part of the guides. Professionals are professionals. Yes, a guide is right to decline to offer his services, but someone should step up and help the kid. If the father and son die on the mountain because the guides were unwilling to help, they will bear some responsibility.

As for Nepal, they have the right to decline access to the mountain to any party. I don't think it's right that they would decline the kid the right to ascend from the Nepalese side simply because they disagree with the pursuit of the record. Putting up barriers in front of people and leaving them more difficult choices is an unintended side effect that makes it more likely that a catastrophe will occur.

Personally, if I were the Nepalese government, I'd offer permission to climb on their side provided that the climb is done by their regulations. Full guides, the whole show. If the parent balks at the regulations for any reason whatsoever, that would mean rescinding permission.

[SlowwHand]

Is it possible that the guides might have felt that in the event the child falters, it would put their survival at risk? Why? Because they know that they would want to try and help the child. Adults would be bad enough, and they should be losing the parents additionally.
It kind of makes the whole thing seem not so much fun, to them. Kind of a buzz kill.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jobs are funny like that.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I should have clarified.

From what I've seen with the Everest guides, is that they are perfectly willing to escort well-paying adults up the mountain, irrespective of their preparation.

Based on a conclusive study of what, exactly?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I should have clarified.

Personally, if I were the Nepalese government, I'd offer permission to climb on their side provided that the climb is done by their regulations. Full guides, the whole show. If the parent balks at the regulations for any reason whatsoever, that would mean rescinding permission.

Their regulations now include the clause "no kids", so I fully agree with you and can only wonder what you're arguing for.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think that regulation should be changed.