The Slippery Slope of Responsive Humanity
"DOUBLE AMPUTEE CONQUERS EVEREST"
Well, wow, that's some feat. Difficult in the extreme for ambitious mountaineers in the prime of their lives, with all of their limbs intact. For a double amputee that's some ambition, some output of determined energy, some prize. I'm personally fascinated with mountain climbing. And those ascents requiring years of preparation, months in the doing in at the various base camps, acclimitization, fierce discipline, well, it represents a feat of human endurance beyond my understanding. For those whose desire it is to conquer the mountain, who can criticize?
Perhaps a gentle critique, in the manner of why would they feel so emotionally compelled to ascend this mountain and others like it? True, the views are unparalleled, but one needn't go to such incredible heights to attain breathtaking views of height, distance and breadth. Ascending a four-thousand foot mountain within a range of similarly-heighted mountains offers one quite similar views. But of course there are always those who relish pushing their bodies beyond what most people would consider to be reasonable endurance.
In any event, it was fascinating, as always, to read about this singular adventure: a 47-year-old New Zealander who 24 years previously had lost his legs to a climbing accident, undaunted by his artificial legs and ascending the fabled Everest despite them. He was not alone in his efforts, as there was a contingent with whom he shared his efforts, and one does wonder whether someone else gave assistance at times. Aside from the fact that the Sherpas hired to accompany climbers always assign one of their numbers to go ahead of the group and secure lines of passage, while others set up tents, boil tea, prepare meals and, in essence, do all the "work" associated with setting up camp at the various levels. And oh yes, carry most of the critical supplies from food to tents, oxygen tanks and other necessities. Freeing the "climbers" to, well, climb.
What really arrested me was what one of the members of Mark Inglis's (the prostheses-wearing climber) climbing team related to the news media. A not-unknown occurrence, but on occasion one that compels climbers to abort their personal ambitions in favour of giving assistance to another climber whom misfortune's death mask has grinned upon. Evidently Wayne Alexander, one of Mr. Inglis's three climbing companions described an incident during the final ascent:
The article further stated that it was not known what happened to the climber they passed on the way up. I have, of course, read of other ascents by other climbers who were sobered by seeing a corpse, recent and otherwise of climbers whose ambitions had taken them up Everest in their own bids to reach the summit. Just as I've read, as stated above, that some climbers, coming across a would-be summiteer in dire straits had elected to sacrifice their personal ambitions to the imperative to assist the climber-in-distress to effect a safe descent.
Obviously, no such abortion-of-purpose was contemplated by this brave crew. They duly noted the mortal distress of this unfortunate climber, related his condition to their own chances of success and imperilment, and pushed on. Rivetted on their own egotistical ambition. I try to get my mind around this, that this group assessed this stranger's physical condition, his chances for survival, and they rejected their own responsibility toward another human being in need.
At the summit, in jubilation the double amputee, Mark Inglis telephoned his wife by satellite telephone to trumpet to her the success of his efforts. She would, no doubt, be proud of her husband.
Well, wow, that's some feat. Difficult in the extreme for ambitious mountaineers in the prime of their lives, with all of their limbs intact. For a double amputee that's some ambition, some output of determined energy, some prize. I'm personally fascinated with mountain climbing. And those ascents requiring years of preparation, months in the doing in at the various base camps, acclimitization, fierce discipline, well, it represents a feat of human endurance beyond my understanding. For those whose desire it is to conquer the mountain, who can criticize?
Perhaps a gentle critique, in the manner of why would they feel so emotionally compelled to ascend this mountain and others like it? True, the views are unparalleled, but one needn't go to such incredible heights to attain breathtaking views of height, distance and breadth. Ascending a four-thousand foot mountain within a range of similarly-heighted mountains offers one quite similar views. But of course there are always those who relish pushing their bodies beyond what most people would consider to be reasonable endurance.
In any event, it was fascinating, as always, to read about this singular adventure: a 47-year-old New Zealander who 24 years previously had lost his legs to a climbing accident, undaunted by his artificial legs and ascending the fabled Everest despite them. He was not alone in his efforts, as there was a contingent with whom he shared his efforts, and one does wonder whether someone else gave assistance at times. Aside from the fact that the Sherpas hired to accompany climbers always assign one of their numbers to go ahead of the group and secure lines of passage, while others set up tents, boil tea, prepare meals and, in essence, do all the "work" associated with setting up camp at the various levels. And oh yes, carry most of the critical supplies from food to tents, oxygen tanks and other necessities. Freeing the "climbers" to, well, climb.
What really arrested me was what one of the members of Mark Inglis's (the prostheses-wearing climber) climbing team related to the news media. A not-unknown occurrence, but on occasion one that compels climbers to abort their personal ambitions in favour of giving assistance to another climber whom misfortune's death mask has grinned upon. Evidently Wayne Alexander, one of Mr. Inglis's three climbing companions described an incident during the final ascent:
"We came across a chap sheltering under a rock, who was perhaps hours from death. that was probably only 2-1/2 hours into the climb. He had made a mistake the day before. He started too late and couldn't get off the mountain. That was a very sobering reality, that every pace you took further from that point was further from safety, and we had to all make it back. It didn't deter Mark."
The article further stated that it was not known what happened to the climber they passed on the way up. I have, of course, read of other ascents by other climbers who were sobered by seeing a corpse, recent and otherwise of climbers whose ambitions had taken them up Everest in their own bids to reach the summit. Just as I've read, as stated above, that some climbers, coming across a would-be summiteer in dire straits had elected to sacrifice their personal ambitions to the imperative to assist the climber-in-distress to effect a safe descent.
Obviously, no such abortion-of-purpose was contemplated by this brave crew. They duly noted the mortal distress of this unfortunate climber, related his condition to their own chances of success and imperilment, and pushed on. Rivetted on their own egotistical ambition. I try to get my mind around this, that this group assessed this stranger's physical condition, his chances for survival, and they rejected their own responsibility toward another human being in need.
At the summit, in jubilation the double amputee, Mark Inglis telephoned his wife by satellite telephone to trumpet to her the success of his efforts. She would, no doubt, be proud of her husband.
posted by Pieface @ Thursday, May 18, 2006
<< Home