Bernie EcclestonedNorwegian climber says it would have been impossible to carry injured Pakistani porter down snowy K2
daisy lazarusOf course it would have been impossible. One in four climbers on K2 does not make it back. This is a non-story, as tragic as the loss of life may be. 25% mortality rate. You have better odds rolling a die for your life. Punintended.
DEATHS ON K2
K2 is considered one of the most difficult climbs. For every four climbers attempting to summit K2, one climber dies. In comparison one in every 20 attempting to climb Mount Everest dies. As of June 2018, only 367 people have completed the ascent of K2 and 86 had died trying. As of 1995 113 people reached the summit of K2 and 48 died. In 1995 seven people were killed in brutal storm that raged for nine days. Thirty kilometers away a rock climber froze to death in a hanging tent. In August 2008, eleven climbers died over two days (See Below), In a 1953 attempt, Art Gilkey was killed, either in an avalanche or in a deliberate attempt to avoid burdening his companions.
JohnEdwaIf it somehow guaranteed your success it would be safer to play a round of russian roulette at the base camp before you begin your climb as that has only one in six chance of killing you. That's how crazy your odds of success on the climb sound like.
Yet they all know the statistics and the risks, and go do it anyway.
Yet they all know the statistics and the risks, and go do it anyway.
grahamszAlso I can understand taking that risk for yourself. Certainly it's way outside my comfort zone, but I'm not going to tell someone else they can't do something dangerous. But how can you go out and hire people to help you knowing there's a 25% chance they'll be giving their lives for you?
But how can you go out and hire people to help you knowing there’s a 25% chance they’ll be giving their lives for you?
I mean, they want to be hired. That’s how a lot of people there make a living. They are aware of the risks.
Sure - and i'm sure I could find people who'd play a game of russian roulette for $1M but it'd be massively unethical to hire people to do that.
So there's obviously some line - as a society we consider it ethical to hire forestry workers or deep sea fishermen even though they have a significantly higher risk of death that most other professions. I think a 25% death rate is just unethical in the extreme, even Everest is something like 1%.
Everest appears to be 5%. Where would you draw the line, and how would you justify it?
I have no idea, but hiring someone for a job that has a 1 in 20 chance of killing them seems fundamentally immoral - especially given the massive financial imbalance.
It's certainly a good philosophical question though
Yeah, taking it to the extreme, the same logic applies to delivery guys on scooters and motorcycles. There’s definitely no good answer, except maybe that they accepted the risk
Looking at it more, there seems to be an entire field of Risk Ethics associated with this.
Still the most dangerous job in the US is a Commercial Fisherman with a risk of death of 132 per 100,000. That's a very long way from the risk of dying on Everest or K2.