Posted:
Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:14 pmby John Duffield
knoback wrote:Ah, the post-page 3 degeneration, it is as reliable as gravity. This high altitude slog stuff is all about physiology and bull-headedness, so a 13 y.o. boy may be uniquely qualified for such a task. Whether it's reasonable or not depends on the execution. This is true of any climbing activity, though. We shall see, eh? I guess I don't see how it's inherently that big a deal one way or another. Now if a 13 y.o. leads Andromeda Strain or Birdbrain Blvd., that would be noteworthy.
Excellent!! +1
Though I think it is a big deal. Unless he aborts in Kathmandu or something.
I don't think he's in that huge a risk of dying there. He'll have a microscope on him every minute of every day. Though every trip through the icefall bears inherent risk.
Will be interesting to see how this pays out later in his life. Fact is, there are many things about this sport we don't know. How will his young brain adapt to the "Thin Air"?
Posted:
Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:59 pmby Bob Sihler
Boy, do I miss the Chief.
Posted:
Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:12 pmby Hotoven
Bob Sihler wrote:Boy, do I miss the Chief.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing. I miss his outrageous font type and out of control abbreviations describing passionate beliefs on the subject, by ridiculing everyone and laying down the law...
Posted:
Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:12 pmby John Duffield
Bob Sihler wrote:Boy, do I miss the Chief.
He's busy climbing. Looking for a partner to go a'bolting.
edited:
13 year old on Everest
Posted:
Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:46 pmby Cy Kaicener
I just googled Jordan Romero Everest and this is just one of many
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8615400.stm
Posted:
Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:33 pmby Marmaduke
I am listening to those who feel I need to take on some peaks greater than what I have done so far in my very brief stint as a hiker. I want to be accepted by the SP community in the worse way, especially from those I've offended. So untill the snow melts and I can start on higher elevation peaks, I have found some peaks that are here in California that I hope will suffice. Thy are, Double Point, Mount Ellen, Manly Beacon and Carpenter Hill. I will also tackle Mission Peak as suggested by kiev98.
Re: 13 year old on Everest
Posted:
Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:44 pmby John Duffield
Well there it is. He's taking his Algebra and writing assignments along to keep those brain cells occupied. Interesting. He's going down (presumbably) the Friendship Highway to the Chinese side. So he won't be exposed to the Khumbu Icefall.
Posted:
Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:03 pmby Deltaoperator17
Hotoven wrote:Bob Sihler wrote:Boy, do I miss the Chief.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing. I miss his outrageous font type and out of control abbreviations describing passionate beliefs on the subject, by ridiculing everyone and laying down the law...
Me three, so was he banned for life or did he hit the ignore button?
RISK IT ALL FOR GLORY? sure, kid.
Posted:
Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:09 pmby robertjoy
Our society commonly recognizes that minors, particularly under age 16, cannot be deemed competent to "freely" make decisions which are "high-risk". Examples range from having sex with an adult, to refusing life saving medical care for religious reasons, to owning a concealed weapons permit, to driving a car or drinking micro-brew.
While we mountaineers have become acclimatized to the inherent risks of mountaineering, I think most would share the opinion that a climb of Everest is assuming a more serious risk. Is it not the risk, as well as the physical difficulty which make Everest the object of respect?
How then, can we condone a parent's willingness to encourage his child to attempt this mountain, to capture the record as the YOUNGEST to summit? While the child may be ambitious, it is the parent who has a duty to be prudent. Summitting Everest before puberty is not the sort of goal a good parent encourages, any more than a good parent would encourage his child to jump 40 school buses on a motorcycle. Children should not be encouraged to "risk it all for glory".
Re: RISK IT ALL FOR GLORY? sure, kid.
Posted:
Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:27 pmby Marmaduke
robertjoy wrote:Our society commonly recognizes that minors, particularly under age 16, cannot be deemed competent to "freely" make decisions which are "high-risk". Examples range from having sex with an adult, to refusing life saving medical care for religious reasons, to owning a concealed weapons permit, to driving a car or drinking micro-brew.
While we mountaineers have become acclimatized to the inherent risks of mountaineering, I think most would share the opinion that a climb of Everest is assuming a more serious risk. Is it not the risk, as well as the physical difficulty which make Everest the object of respect?
How then, can we condone a parent's willingness to encourage his child to attempt this mountain, to capture the record as the YOUNGEST to summit? While the child may be ambitious, it is the parent who has a duty to be prudent. Summitting Everest before puberty is not the sort of goal a good parent encourages, any more than a good parent would encourage his child to jump 40 school buses on a motorcycle. Children should not be encouraged to "risk it all for glory".
More logic, we can't have that.
Posted:
Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:19 pmby mconnell
Day Hiker wrote:Let's see . . . 13 years old; that's middle school. So there is no homework (unless you're a nerd
), but that's still about 5 hours of class time 5 days a week (ignoring phys. ed., of course). There is no amount of homework this kid could possibly bring with him (and actually work on during the expedition
) that would even make up for a fraction of the academic class time lost!
There's no amount of school work he could take with him that would touch on what he could learn on a trip like that. He will probably learn more during those couple of months than in a couple of years of school. I know that my son learned more in the semester "out of school" (when he was 13) than he learned during any year of school.
There are more, and better, ways to learn than listening to a teacher talk.
Posted:
Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:34 pmby Marmaduke
mconnell wrote:Day Hiker wrote:Let's see . . . 13 years old; that's middle school. So there is no homework (unless you're a nerd
), but that's still about 5 hours of class time 5 days a week (ignoring phys. ed., of course). There is no amount of homework this kid could possibly bring with him (and actually work on during the expedition
) that would even make up for a fraction of the academic class time lost!
There's no amount of school work he could take with him that would touch on what he could learn on a trip like that. He will probably learn more during those couple of months than in a couple of years of school. I know that my son learned more in the semester "out of school" (when he was 13) than he learned during any year of school.
There are more, and better, ways to learn than listening to a teacher talk.
I actually agree with that. Even though I'm very opposed to him making this attempt, the school work can always be made up down the road. The school work isn't the reason he should not be making this hike.
I think the risk here and because possibility of death, we should pray he makes it and is still healthy. Then his experiences can be talked about. Not sure trumpeted however. And the fact still remains, there will be a 12 year old that comes along with the goal of being the youngest, then an 11 year old.................Sorry, it's a bad decision.
