Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Right to Risk?

Minimally moderated forum for climbing related hearsay, misinformation, and lies.
 

Postby Lolli » Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:20 am

Neophiteat48 wrote:
You make great points and in this debate "for the attempt", you have clearly made the best argument. I still question the decision of the parents but your points have moved me closer to middle ground on this. If there are other kids out there who may have climbing abilities equal to this kid and are younger, where and how do you draw a line and say it's too young? I know that it's up to the parent but society (as we're discussing here), will always weigh in as well. And is there set of circumstances that when "young"....... is too young and then at the very least child neglect comes into play and laws to answer too?


Thank you. :-) Don't know if it's true, though.

Are we only talking about climbing Everest? It's hard to set an age, because of course it depends on the child. Not all 13 year olds are mature enough, too. Neither are all 20 year olds. There are guidelines though, physical ones, as before the age of 12 a child doesn't have full peripheral vision, for instance. (A menace in traffic. )
Without binding myself to an age, I think that somewhere below 12-13, there's a barrier. A physical barrier. Below 13, you aren't supposed to bodybuild, because it harms the body rather than builds up.

To me, this a double-edged issue.
Safety for a child, but not too much. Living is a risk in itself. We must equip our children by giving them the opportunity to use all of their possibilities.
User Avatar
Lolli

 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:56 pm
Location: Sweden
Thanked: 108 times in 67 posts

Postby Bob Sihler » Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:50 am

Neophiteat48 wrote:
Bob Sihler wrote:Something interesting I've noticed in this thread-- some of the people who are so against the kid climbing Everest also say they don't want anyone, especially the government, making rules about what you have to do with your kids.

So exactly how do you expect to get any of these people to change?

I'm not saying I support every rule, written or unwritten, pertaining to safety of children, but it seems there is a disconnect here.

News flash: In general, people don't change their ways unless they're forced to or it's in their economic self-interest to do so. So if you're against taking those kinds of measures, how is any of this anything but hot air?


But can't the government have laws for the results of the actions? No law for the action itself but for the results?


That's essentially a law for the action, though. "Go ahead and do it, but if it goes bad, we will come after you." It's not right to punish someone for what isn't against the rules. With what you're saying, the proper course is to accept whatever "natural" consequences result.
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 7325
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Herndon, Virginia
Thanked: 1849 times in 1043 posts

Postby Lolli » Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:57 am

SoCalHiker wrote:
Lolli wrote:Why? "At this age?" 13 is beyond childhood.


???? That is news to me...

Granted, some children seem to be more mature than their given age, but they are still children.


Depends on your child. And how you treat it. There are 13 year olds which are younger than their age, still like younger children, and there are those who are mature.
In western societies we tend to prolong the childhood, not trust our children, hold them back and in general make them less than what they would be able of. A disservice, while we believe us to be responsible parents.

A 13 year old is not a small child anymore. They are not yet adults, but they have entered the realm of near-adult. They're too young to be abandoned to fly on their own, (sadly enough there are many such in this world) even if they're in their disengaging process, but our roles as parents has changed. We can cripple them, or let them soar.

Many here blame the father - but if the son drives this through, isn't it better he's part of his son's world, engaged, being there, watching out for him? Since I don't know this family, there's no way of telling if it's that way, or the opposite - the father pushes the son. What I do know, is that if the son doesn't have the drive within himself, but from an outside source, I strongly doubt he'll summit. He may not summit anyway, but that would be a huge obstacle in the way. Without the will, one cannot summit Everest.
User Avatar
Lolli

 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:56 pm
Location: Sweden
Thanked: 108 times in 67 posts

Postby Jimmie » Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:03 pm

I hope the kid comes back safe, which he most likely will. The survival rate for an Everest newbie (meaning coming back safe and without serious medical problems) is probably in the 99-99,5 % range. I just hope he's not one of the 0,5-1 % who end up dead or lose fingers and/or toes like the current record holder experienced.

IMO the question of if it's the childs or the fathers wish is irrelevant. In both case the parents should simply say no.

No one is stopping him from going to Everest when he becomes an adult.
Jimmie

 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:19 pm
Thanked: 5 times in 3 posts

Postby Charles » Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:33 pm

Isn´t the youngest person yet 16? And isn´t he a Sherpa? If I´m correct then the Sherpa was working - interesting ethical thing about workplace and age. I know in Nepal that is not really much of a thing but maybe a western expedition that hired him should think of that.
User Avatar
Charles

 
Posts: 14936
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 9:20 am
Location: Germany
Thanked: 788 times in 585 posts

Postby John Duffield » Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:12 pm

Lolli wrote:I don't think it's so much a desire, as an urge.



I think this sums it up exactly. +1
The boy can't help himself. He's one of us. Comes alive when he's at altitude.

I remember a conversation about music once when I was taking lessons. I was pushing myself to practice. At some point, I could see for the true musicians, practice wasn't a chore, it was a necessary release. Something they needed to do to release the music that was bubbling throughout their soul.

Odds are, he'll have quite a career. Of course he's now getting exposed to Nepal and the Himilaya. There is nothing like it. Everything is, sorry folks, less. When you see the real giants, you're spoiled. Then there's the culture the non-mountain obstacles.
User Avatar
John Duffield

 
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:48 pm
Location: New York City, , China
Thanked: 767 times in 425 posts

Postby Augie Medina » Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:01 pm

Knowingly putting a child in a situation where great bodily harm is likely to result is a common standard for child endangerment laws. And it's not whether the person doing the endangering "knew" but rather would a "reasonable person" have known harm was likely to result.
User Avatar
Augie Medina

 
Posts: 786
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:56 pm
Location: South Pasadena, California, United States
Thanked: 10 times in 7 posts

Postby Marmaduke » Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:20 pm

Mountain Impulse wrote:Knowingly putting a child in a situation where great bodily harm is likely to result is a common standard for child endangerment laws. And it's not whether the person doing the endangering "knew" but rather would a "reasonable person" have known harm was likely to result.


Couldn't agree more. So regarding the 13 year old attempting Everest, couldn't that fall into that definition? I would think so, and in the "other thread" a lot of these type of logical responses were posted and the other side seems to be so dismissive of this. I shouldn't have gone as far as calling them "idiots", but what seems to be such a logical point of view is just thrown to the side as irrelevent, well a little frustrating. And we are talking about a 13 year old life here- not a rich 50 year old that has at least lived and .............well that's enough of that.

Troy
User Avatar
Marmaduke

 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:08 am
Location: Sonoma, California, United States
Thanked: 578 times in 444 posts

Postby Bob Sihler » Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:25 pm

This thread was a lot more interesting when we were debating the questions of the OP instead of starting a second Everest thread.
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 7325
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Herndon, Virginia
Thanked: 1849 times in 1043 posts

PreviousNext

Return to Ethics, Spray, and Slander

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.