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.