Mihai Tanase wrote:Zzyzx wrote:Lolli wrote:I will do the same.
You will pretend that you don't exist?
What is your opinian about this topic ?
Which topic? Lolli's existence or a 13-year old climbing Everest?
I don't care much about the former, I was just curious what exactly her statement meant.
As far as the 13-year old kid goes, I think it's an irresponsible decision on part of the parents, specifically the father. Climbing is about a personal fulfillment, but in this case it's all about publicity. When you make a big deal about being the youngest, the oldest, the tallest, the shortest or whatever else, to climb 7 peaks / Everest it becomes more about recognition of others and finding sponsors than doing what you are passionate about.
The risk on Everest would be much higher than on Denali because of all the physiological effects at this altitude and very limited possibilities of a rescue when something goes wrong.
This kid may be a very good mountaineer for his age and strongly motivated, but he simply doesn't have enough life experience to understand all the risk involved in it. Is being the youngest to summit worth the possibility of not just dying but also living with the consequences of a severe frostbite, such as loosing your fingers, toes, hands, feet or the nose?
If it really was about personal fulfillment you'd enjoy it regardless of whether you so it at the age of 13 or 25 or 50 and regardless of whether the whole world knows about it or not. If I wish I'd started climbing when I was 13 it's because I'd have so much more time to climb so much more, not because I'd be the youngest to summit whatever peaks I could summit.