Showroom7561

Seems to work well! I'll continue using it because of the offline translation feature.

It’s a bit misleading to compare total numbers instead of percentages. The most people to ever summit Everest in one year was 800 in 2018, and an average of 4.4 deaths occur per year to do it.

That’s 0.55% mortality for this one mountain.

Of course, the more participants, the lower the percentage goes down. But we are still only talking about a handful of deaths vs hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of deaths from other ordinary activities.

If you apply the same odds to any other sport they would probably be banned. Could you imagine if 9 NFL players died every year? It’s roughly less than 1 per year at the moment I believe and that’s still pretty bad.

I'm sure it would, especially if the sport was accessible to everyone (which mountain climbing is not).

For us regular folks, I'm more concerned with how many people drown doing recreational activities, or die in car accidents doing non-important travelling, or die from legally accessible drugs and alcohol.

I think the outrage over “allowing” mountain climbing is misplaced. That's my opinion.

What? LOL

Sherpas tend to be highly skilled, genetically adapted to altitude and mountains, and are extremely well paid (life-changing).

You keep painting this picture like they dragged some homeless local off the street and forced him up a mountain. That's not fair, and it undervalues the role of a sherpa.

There are plenty of hikes and other things throughout the world that will not involve other people dying for them.

Again, you can say this about any activity if you don't enjoy adventure. Another hike might put you in danger of wild animals, or a traffic accident if touring by bus.

Tragedy happens, and fortunately, as far as mountain climbing goes, it's quite rare.

Someone said around 10 million die per year. But old people die. Everywhere.

But they are “replaced” by 7 million+ babies.

Let's not forget that China STILL limits the number of children you can have, and limited families to one child for decades before the limit was raised to two, then three. They don't really want more people.

But it just shows how these expeditions exploit the global poor to death for just the simple pleasures of the relatively wealthy.

Can't this be said of pretty much any tourist attraction in an underdeveloped country? Even guided expeditions (on land or by water) can be dangerous to the guide. Heck, even in North America you have tours of glaciers, which can be quite dangerous. We just call it regular work, not exploitation.

Just a few years ago, several people died on one of these tours..

I also think it's unfair to paint these people as rich snobs just out to fulfill some "unnecessary journey". Life is about adventure, and some people do more than just walk around their own neighbourhood trails.

But this is all in the realm of subjectivity, and I don't think there's a right or wrong side to this argument.

Russian Roulette has a far higher rate of death in participants than fishing, but probably results in less yearly deaths. By this logic, Russian Roulette should be legal because it causes less overall harm.

Are you saying that something designed to have a fatal outcome is comparable to something that does not, yet still results in a tremendous number of preventable death? Because that seems like a straw man.

Applying the same logic to your animal example - I found a study saying tigers kill on average 1-2 people in the US per year, less than 1/10th the number killed by cows. Does that mean people should be allowed to own tigers?

Well... tigers are banned for a different reason, so that logic can't be applied. But let's take dogs, bully breeds... some places DO ban them because of how dangerous they are, even though cows kill more people.

But in the context of sport, people who understand and consent to the risks they pose to themselves should be permitted to do it. If not, then nearly every sport would be banned on the basis of them being too dangerous. Heck, cheerleading causes something like 20,000+ injuries a year. LOL

Bro, the actual numbers (3 mil loss a year) is insignificant when your population has 1.5 billion people in it. What demographic will catastrophically collapse?

You're getting 7 million babies (i.e. young people) to replace 10 million old people... this is actually quite good and the way it's supposed to be.

And is this coming from a country that had a one child policy for decades, then increased it to two and then three kids. *They literally don't want more people! *

Again, adding over 7 million people is what's important, and it's a huge number.

We're talking about a loss of 3 million once you factor in deaths. If it was a country like Canada, with a population of less than 50 million people, that would be problematic.

But with a population pool of 1.5 billion, what's the actual concern? What social instability does this cause that a population of 1.5 billion already doesn't?

There will never be too few people in China, and a slow population decline from 1.5 billion allows for a more sustainable future.

Oh, come on now. In the worst year, Everest claimed 11 lives.

In the United States of America, on average, 22 people die from COWS.

Extreme sports, like mountain climbing, are dangerous, but not nearly as deadly as fishing (drownings).

I didn't say it was weird. The numbers are still incredible.

And with nearly 1.5 BILLION people, it's not like they'll run out of people.

This isn't a Children of Men situation.