These stories are never about uncovering an underground world of Xenon performance enhancement or discussing the science (which is much less optimistic about Xenon’s benefits). They’re always lazily relaying the PR information that Lukas Furtenbach gives them.
So while it’s true that Xenon appears to have some possible performance enhancing properties, all of these news pieces about how climbers are using Xenon always come back to this one same guy who is, coincidentally, trying really hard to sell people on expensive Xenon-assisted Everest tours.
That’s some really solid PR work on his part if true, but if he is scaling (pun intended) tours that actually do manage to summit Everest in significantly decreased time, I would say that it’s strong evidence that Xenon actually works and the science just hasn’t caught up to it yet. Unless he has found some other clever way that he is for some reason pretending is Xenon.
In the 1991 film K2, Michael Biehn's character used an epinephrine (adrenaline) auto-injector (in his neck), which had recently been marketed and was seen by some wealthy as a booster. This actually increases risk for arrhythmia and makes pulmonary edema worse, so ironically meth would be a preferred booster.
> I would say that it’s strong evidence that Xenon actually works
The only evidence is the claims from the person selling the expensive five-figure Everest packages. It’s the very definition of a conflict of interest.
They also use multiple treatments, not just Xenon. The hikers sleep in hypobaric chambers. Another comment said they used supplemental oxygen but were hiding details about how much.
There is no evidence or even head-to-head testing here. It’s all claims that come from one person, who is also trying to sell the treatment.
But are people repeatedly getting up the mountain in much less time? If so, it really doesn’t matter if it’s because of one particular substance or another, and if not, it would be pretty easy to determine it is fake, right?
If something normally takes two weeks and some guy claims his novel method gets you up there in one, it’s at least easy to verify whether his novel method actually does do it.
All kinds of fancy "research" and "reasons" it will work, and the marks\\\\customers put in a financial and emotional investment in it working, so expect it to work.
This is more of a Dumbo’s feather than a placebo effect, but in either case, it’s hard to imagine he is getting people up the mountain in significantly the last time with it.
It spikes HIF-1α → EPO for a day or two, but meta-analyses still doesn't show a real performance bump, let alone safety at 8 km. Feels less like innovation and more like mountaineering’s own carbon-plate shoes, except the failure mode here is cerebral edema, not a slow marathon time.
> but meta-analyses still doesn't show a real performance bump
I wish all of these news articles would discuss the actual studies instead of lazily parroting the claims of the one guy who is trying to sell expensive Xenon-assisted Everest hikes.
These articles are always PR pieces for Lukas Furtenbach’s expensive Everest tours. Every single time I see the words “Xenon” and “Everest” in a headline, his name is in the article as the source.
> I wish all of these news articles would discuss the actual studies
They do, if you read them.
> While some doctors have used the gas in the past to “precondition” patients to low oxygen levels — for example, before major heart surgery — the practice hasn’t really caught on because “it hasn’t been as protective as one would hope,” he said.
> Mike Shattock, a professor of cellular cardiology at King’s College London, said “xenon probably does very little and there is virtually no reputable scientific evidence that it makes any difference.”
> Some research has shown that xenon can quickly acclimatize people to high altitudes, even as some experts say the benefits, if any, are negligible and the side effects of its use remain unclear.
All the quotes you posted basically say the same thing; There is no evidence for the efficacy of xenon. That's scientist speak for: "Xenon doesn't work".
Depends, it can also mean "this hasn't really been studied well" if there just hasn't been much research into it. I just pulled all the times it talked about studies or another expert talking about it being ineffective.
I did read the article, which is how I knew Lukas Furtenbach was involved. Please don’t accuse people of not reading the article when they’re specifically talking about content of the article.
Anyway, my point was that if these articles wanted to be serious about the science, they’d lead with the studies and science.
Instead, they tack on weasel words (literally “some experts say” and “some research” as in your quotes ) in an attempt to make it feel like a both-sides style journalism while leaving Furtenbach’s claims as the headline and the main story.
It's not a scientific publication though... it's the NYTimes. The main story is that the guys managed a summit in 3 days. For all the controversy around Xenon and it's effects as a PED in sport the combo of hypoxia tents and Xenon provably worked at least this time to enable the rapid summit.
Athletic use is probably more common than people think. And I'd be absolutely shocked if Xe gas weren't already being used in racehorses. (You wouldn't believe the state of chemical warfare in that sport.)
There's also potential military use -- especially in combat divers. They're very limited by the amount of breathing gas they can carry. Anything to meaningfully cut oxygen use could be a game changer.
Military divers who need to be underwater for long periods are almost certainly using rebreathers, both for the longevity and for the lack of visible & audible bubbles.
Rebreathers may feature slightly elevated oxygen levels vis-a-vis standard air (you need a lot of knowledge to use one safely, so presumably anyone diving a rebreather has done the far simpler courses for nitrox or trimix, both of which are used for limiting nitrogen narcosis), but for military divers it's much more about the lack of bubbles and noise.
I always wondered if the allied forces were giving their elite troops EPO or similar when tracking the Taliban up and down mountains in Afghanistan. If they weren't, I think they should have been.
I don't know about EPO, it probably wouldn't have been that useful. But it was an open secret that a lot of the elite ground troops used illegally purchased performance enhancing steroids to build muscle and accelerate recovery. Long patrols through rough terrain while carrying a heavy load are extremely grueling and a little enhancement was tremendously helpful. Use of those drugs was technically a violation of military regulations. But officers often looked the other way because they didn't want to endanger the mission, and regular urine tests didn't check for steroids.
Now that the GWOT is over, the peacetime military has been cracking down on steroid use.
So they slept in hypoxia tents which activates the hypoxia-inducible factor molecule, but they also took xenon which also activates the molecule. So, it's not clear if the xenon actually did anything?
Back during the 2000 dot-com boom crash I met a guy who got into a top business school in part by writing about the challenges of climbing Everest. He confessed drunkenly at a party to me that he'd never even left the USA...
> Back during the 2000 dot-com boom crash I met a guy who got into a top business school in part by writing about the challenges of climbing Everest
I met a startup founder in my local community who would always bring up his ambitions to climb Everest. He made sure everyone knew and made it part of his personality.
Except, he was very out of shape and undeniably overweight. He was not doing any type of training or fitness activity. Everyone could see with their own eyes that this man was not on any path toward climbing Everest in any way.
Yet people around him always brought up his Everest ambitions like it was an amazing fact about him. I always wondered if it was some sort of litmus test to see who could be convinced to deny reality and follow what he said.
I met a climbing guide who had summitted Mt. Everest multiple times (and had the pictures to prove it). His normal cardio workout was to put on a heavy backpack, then get on a StairMaster machine and go at maximum speed for a couple hours. He looked amazing — although I don't think he ever founded a tech startup.
I have a coworker who talked to me about wanting to climb Everest. I asked him if he does any climbing or even liked to climb. The answer was "No". It's a really weird thing. Everest seems to be a symbol for achievement.
If the business school is silly enough to accept people based partially on the idea that they climbed Everest, perhaps he was right to treat the task of getting in to the place as essentially theatre.
Isn't most business success about convincing people to buy expensive tulips while you (legally) walk away with the money and leave them holding the bags, then rinse and repeat? Seems like he'd be the right person for the job.
And then you wonder why so many young people flirt with communism or want to see the capitalist system burn to the ground. What's the point of ethics and hard work if those who just lie their way into much better opportunities will out-earn you by orders of magnitude? Granted, it's a bit more complicated than that, often those people also have connections, but the feeling still stands.
Not sure if meritocracy has been on a decline, or that we're now just more aware of it due to the internet.
you wonder why so many young people flirt with communism or want to see the capitalist system burn to the ground. What's the point of ethics and hard work if those who just lie their way into much better opportunities will out-earn you by orders of magnitude?
Unethical people tend to get themselves better opportunities regardless of how society is organized.
Most business is about providing value by delivering goods or services that people want and are willing to pay for. Visit your local shops, how many of them are convincing people to buy proverbial tulips and leaving their customers holding the bag? Look at the most valuable companies in the world; they all do or make stuff people happily pay for because they actually find value in it.
Certainly there are people who succeed in business by doing what you say, but it’s not how most success happens.
But there is a real magic that happens in the process there.
When two people make a deal, voluntarily, at least rationally (unless it is charity) both expect to be better off.
The magic of the businessman is to connive his way into getting the largest slice of the 'better off'. He generally can't legally make a deal without generating value, but if he can capture it to the point the customer is only one iota better off he is a good businessman and no one has been defrauded.
Optimally, suppliers/vendors/customers would like to grow together. If the companies I'm the vendor for are only getting a tiny sliver of value from what I'm selling them then they might not grow in their market, and my business with them also won't grow.
There's a lot of narrow-sightedness in this zero-sum model of transactions.
Customers also tend to try to get the largest slice of the "better off." That's not special. Do you take less pay than you could get because you don't want to be greedy? Do you voluntarily pay more than the listed price when purchasing items? Of course not.
In a properly functioning market, the limiting factor is competition. A business can't capture 99% of the "better off" because the guy down the street will undercut it by only capturing 98% and all the customers will go there. A customer likewise can't capture 99% because the business will decide it's not worthwhile and sell to customers who capture less. Somewhere in the middle is found equilibrium.
Bag-holding is different, it means there's some sort of trickery and the other side doesn't actually benefit from the transaction. And this does happen, but it's not the norm. Again, go take a look at your local shops. Which ones are engaging in this?
There is a 'human' process 'somewhere in the middle' as you say.
I'm not anti-capitalist, I just acknowledge this as a fundamental part of the human process. It might even be the case the businessman's incentive don't fully align with the stockholder/owner's incentive, in many case the businessman can profit at the expense of the company by capturing higher commission with side-effects that the company won't understand.
A clever businessman will get the better end of that, while still leaving his customer better off than if he hadn't transacted at all, as many witness at the car dealership.
My point is that most business is in that middle. A typical business transaction ends with both sides getting a decent chunk of the value produced. Abusive transactions happen but they're not that common, certainly not the majority as the other comment said.
Unless you take the skeptical view that the US administration does not represent the people but rather merely the administration and its ilk, who stand to profit immensely if they are in cahoots with corrupt import/export smugglers or are trading for gains in some of the few winners, or even just shorting the losers.
I walked away from a full time job making $180K a year for 2 hours a day because the consulting company renting out my time wanted me to put 8 hours. I felt like I was helping them somehow fleece the client, even though the client probably had over a trillion dollars under management. In retrospect I was very foolish.
In the free market you have to learn sales, to do well. And most sales techniques are about making people realize they may need something (called “building the gap”) and then offering your solution. But your solution usually isn’t any good unless you raise money first.
In my case, I was too honest to overpromise to investors, or create fake volume for tokens, etc. So most investors walked, and it took years for me to build the products. Now I have them. But I am far behind those who overpromise and raise money fast, or create appearances of momentum, and act as if — they fake it til they make it. (Doesn’t need to be all the way as bad as Elizabeth Holmes.)
I have discovered a lot of ethical hacks over the years involving group dynamics, but in the meantime I had taken on hundreds of thousands in debt and repaid it. All for what… because I was too honest to stretch the truth too much.
If I was willing to do it, though, people downstream of me would have been much happier. And people diwnstream of you include your employees and your family and friends. It is a dog eat dog world out there… I have learned that total honesty has a price — you cannot overpromise to people downstream of you, either, otherwise they’ll be left holding the bag. It is better to overpromise to people upstream of you if you have people relying on you. It’s just not a perfect system.
I would have much rather been in a society which has UBI, free association and everyone has some discretionary income and isn’t always just trying to survive. Much more honest. And they wouldn’t even have to fake stuff to stay on disability or qualify for means tested stuff.
> And then you wonder why so many young people flirt with communism or want to see the capitalist system burn to the ground
That's not why, particularly. They do so for various reasons:
- they compare the reality of capitalism with a nonexistent nirvana, rather than the reality of the alternatives. They haven't run the real counterfactual
- they gravitate to any philosophy that they're familiar with instinctively: most students are young, and they conceptualise "fairness" in terms of a loving parental figure with resources meting things out to them, and they think of the government in a similar way
- they believe countries they have heard are nice to live in, normally Scandinavian countries, aren't capitalist
- they don't know the realities of real non-capitalist countries such as the USSR or pre-capitalist China, or present-day Venezuela (not truly non-capitalist, but the central planning around their oil is their main problem), or East Germany, or Cuba
- they have gone to university, the only place where bad ideas can survive and be propogated out into the world
> they have gone to university, the only place where bad ideas can survive and be propogated out into the world
Let's not leave out think-tanks and orgs like the WEF that seem to exist only to launder the opinions of billionaires. And mainstream news publications like the New York Times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
While I don't disagree with many of your points, we shouldn't kid ourselves that we live in the best of all possible worlds for most working or middle class people.
The automotive industry has historically been the most important in both the United States economy and even the world's. It employed millions upon millions, in high-wage jobs. Some large fraction of marketing was for the automotive industry. Even today, having a new luxury car is a status symbol (all the more so if the youngest generations are basically cut out of that). If Tesla can plausibly promise to keep that going forward in an era where no one tolerates burning fossil fuels, then how could it be anything other than a good investment? Of course the "how could it not" could easily crumble (and has already started doing just that).
Example here in Canada and Toronto in particular. There were plenty of independent pet clinics and they used to charge somewhat reasonable prices. Now nearly all of those were bought by big companies / investors. Prices went through the roof, competition is down, and the only thing they want to discuss with the customer is how to squeeze the most money disregarding of results.
Yes I do want those assholes burned at the stake.
Similar story happens in many other areas. People are being squeezed from their money on all fronts. North American IT persons are rare exception of an ordinary person who can still make the ends meet and still have some healthy chunk left to enjoy life.
This is just exhibit 8345346 that this type of "free market" doesn't result in lower prices for consumers, but this grift has been going on for a long time now. Free market now means private investors are free to take over entire markets and monopolize them and bribe/lobby the government regulatory agencies to look the other way at best, or enact regulations that act as moats to defend their position against competitors at worst.
The current state of Canada (stagnating wages, exploding CoL) is what's coming everywhere in the west. The US seems to be most resilient to this, probably due to its status as the world reserve currency and a larger, more competitive economy.
There is nothing even remotely close to a 'free market' in pet clinics.
A free market would be me with a sign in the corner, offering to perform surgery on your dog, with my engineering degree printed on a piece of paper and anesthetics I manufactured in my basement.
North America has severely limited the number of veterinarians and regulated the care, the monopolistic elements are likely largely a result of government intervention.
>>Not sure if meritocracy has been on a decline, or that we're now just more aware of it due to the internet.
As an Indian, let me tell you, to accept something is wrong, and then just being fine about it, and just adjust your life to bad situations is how the fall of societies starts.
Eventually everything becomes fine and acceptable, and you learn over time to adjust yourself to everything, like every bad thing ever.
> hypoxic tents, which lower oxygen levels in the air
I wonder if the shorter time at altitude also reduced the chances of slower-to-develop high-altitude cerebral edema and pulmonary edema (HACE, HAPE). Some climbers have been sleeping in camp in small tubular pressurized tents to reduce daily apparent density altitude.
"Back during the 2000 dot-com boom crash I met a guy who got into a top business school in part by writing about the challenges of climbing Everest. He confessed drunkenly at a party to me that he'd never even left the USA..."
It kind of makes sense. A lot of business success is about being able to bullshit convincingly.
Meta but the discussion from this anecdote drove so much societal commentary, I totally forgot I was here to talk about Xenon-assisted mountaineering and experienced whiplash when people started talking about xenon again...
Important to note that they didn't use xenon for the climb, only for the prepwork, which makes this outcome all the more remarkable. Still, I would feel uneasy if this were to become a trend, as incorrectly administering xenon can lead to death, as seen on Hamilton's Pharmacopeia[0].
> In an interview, Mr. Carns said that his expedition had been in touch with the ministry, and clarified with the department that it had not taken the gas on the mountain.
I think the larger risk is lowering the bar even further for who could climb Everest. Anything that makes climbing “easier” could put more people on the mountain that aren’t fit enough or trained enough to handle problems with the climb. In the death zone, any issue, mistake, or problem is potentially fatal. Since just moving up and down the summit puts people at the absolute limit of exertion, attempting to help someone having an issue could domino into multiple fatalities.
The book “Into Thin Air” by Jon Krakauer is an amazing firsthand account of the 1996 Everest disaster. The book does a great job helping you really understand how far your body is pushed in the death zone, and how you truly have nothing left to do anything other than get one foot in front of the other in a race against time. Just sitting down to “rest” was a likely death sentence and how people had to walk past because stopping to try and help would have likely meant sitting down next to them to die.
That seems completely orthogonal to the point. Much like elsewhere in drug addiction, the deaths were due to the suppliers' negligence, not the fact that the deceased were addicts.
Xenon is used by athletes to increase their endogenous erythropoietin production. As it's a noble gas, it leaves no trace in their body, so post-hoc detection of this doping method is impossible.
But as a recreational climber, why bother with xenon? Just inject EPO.
Why not both? Also detection?!? That’s crazy. Everybody should be doing this. The raison d’etre for these sorts of bans is their perceived negative health consequences.
You almost certainly safer using whatever PED you can get your hands on if you’re trying to climb Everest.
I thought nowadays the sherpas practically carry you up there so it's of low risk to you.
Both wikipedia [1] and an expedition company [2] seem to put the deaths per year as <10 with it being dominated by people from Nepal who are presumably the sherpas doing all the work.
Casually breathing in an anaesthetic gas for prolonged periods is easier and much safer than injecting a widely used medicine? Are you out of your mind?
IMO this climb doesn't really do much to prove of xenon's effectiveness (altitude researcher Dr. Peter Hackett says as much [0]).
The team used supplemental oxygen on the climb, with the starting altitude and flow rate not being reported [1]. This is speculative, but if they were using more oxygen than typical and starting at a lower altitude, that's a massive advantage.
Further, Andrew Ushakov traveled from NYC to the summit in just under 4 days this year without the use of xenon (but also with supplemental oxygen with unknown starting altitude and flow rate). He used a hypoxic tent to prepare as well, and depending on the accuracy of the reporting may have even spent less time doing that than the xenon team did [1].
“Days instead of weeks on the mountain foot” - that’s the crucial point. Less time -> less money spent on accommodation, supplies, personnel there. Obviously they don’t want to lose income.
Yeah was about to say that must have been really good baseline fitness.
I know people that made it to Kilimanjaro as pretty average middle class urbanites with no substantial climbing background, but that's probably at the edge of what's possible.
> I know people that made it to Kilimanjaro ... with no substantial climbing background
Kilimanjaro is an arduous hike. No technical knowledge or equipment is required. The main challenge on the mountain is altitude, which is countered by time spent acclimatising.
Yeah, I knew some middle-aged marathoners who freely confessed that Kilimanjaro kicked their butts. As you say, it's not a technically challenging climb; it's just a long, long hike uphill in steadily thinning air.
Climbing Everest these days just seems to be the quintessential activity for people that have lost site of what really matters in life. It's where you end up if you never grow out of the idea that life is a competition you can win.
My phrasing was weird but I'm actually speaking from personal experience here. I haven't climbed Everest but I've pursued other activities to extreme limits, e.g. running 100 mile high mountain races. These activities are all fun and have intrinsic rewards, but a large number of people doing them (my prior self included) were really in it for the external recognition of having done it. Everest seems to be the epitomy of that. I'm sure there's lots of people quietly climbing Everest just because it's there, but there's certainly very many doing it because of the name Everest and because it's the highest.
Search your feelings, you just think mountain climbing is dumb / invalid and whatever activities that you like are valid. Let people do what they want. If Nepal wants to further restrict quotas, they can do so.
There are both kinds. There are passionate mountaineers that want to reach the tallest summit, with varying degrees of “rules” about it that matter to them. There are also a group of “tourists” that want it for, what appears to be, other reasons.
Some special forces guys, record summit Everest time… let me guess, one is an SAS sniper with numerous recorded kills in Iraq or Afghanistan… but clearly he can’t talk much about it, he just needs you to know it… maybe some mi5 action in there… this is tailor made for a “bro-tube” channel.
I think theres more to it than just ego. I find myself watching Everest videos on Youtube (shout out Michael Tracy's channel).
Ive never done mountaineering but I become fascinated by these stories of people on the mountain and sometimes wonder if I could do it. I definately never will, theres lots of other things id rather invest my time in but I can definately see the allure and why people become obsessed with doing it.
If you're interested in Everest, I loved Into Thin Air, by Jon Krakauer - it's absolutely fantastic and available on Audible. Then last week I discovered Everest on Netflix, which isn't great but it's based on the book and they do a good job showing you the route and distances between the camps with CGI.
Anyways, after all that I have zero desire to ever go near Everest or any other risky mountain climb.
The yt channel I mentioned (link below), is half dedicated to speculating ifMallory and Irvine first summiited everest in the 24' expedition and the other half is dedicated to proving that Krakauer is lying in his book. Michael Tracy is some lawyer that really doesn't like Krakauer's account of 1996 and has some interesting points, I recommend you check it out.
IMO this is a reductionist take that is often peddled around Reddit. "Anybody can climb Everest, it's not that difficult", etc.
Personally? I think it's a pretty cool achievement and is _the_ mountain to climb for a reason. I'm with the other commenter here. Chase your passions.
It's similar to how many people clutch their pearls about abandoned gear on Everest.
Many of the neighbouring countries -- including Nepal, India, Tibet, Bangladesh -- are effectively open-air garbage dumps, where rivers and fields and cities are just awash with discards and garbage. In environmentally critical places where it massively impedes with the life of millions.
In a relative sense I just do not care about some infinitesimal amount of discarded air canisters on a lifeless rock at 10,000 feet. It seems like misdirected envy when people suddenly super care about that. In an ideal world they would leave only footprints, but in the grand scheme of things it just does not matter. Cue another "OMG look at these air canisters some rich guys left at 15,000 feet!" articles.
It's a bit like how the anti-AI cadre have taken to suddenly being incredibly concerned about the energy usage of AI. Despite everything else, it's AI that's going to heat the planet. They never cared about data centre power usage when it was serving their big tiddy goth anime GIFs, but if it's AI suddenly they lament this outrage.
> Should scaling Mount Everest, one of sporting’s greatest accomplishments, be made easier
But it has been, for a long time. Base camps, oxygen masks, advanced gear, etc all make climbing easier.
Similarly, should lifting 200 kg be made easier? It has been made easy, you can use a forklift and barely move your finger to do so. But this is not seen as an accomplishment; if you want to be considered a strong weightlifter, you have to lift an old-school barbell.
The biggest problem, as I can imagine, is not the dilution of the achievement, but the intensity of the stream if the climbers. Mt Everest is already full of climbers who follow each other at a short distance. Doubling this stream might ruin the experience altogether, or there would be large lines and inevitably large fees to jump them.
I used it in my Laser MSc has part of the mix for a CO2 laser (marks how long ago that was). CO2 for the optic properties, and Xe to reduce the electron temperature.
So the Xe in this case triggers a response in the human body, but people aren't quite sure why. Quite strange considering Xe is an inert gas.
Xenon is so expensive it's reasonable to think about recovering it from spent nuclear reactor fuel (it's a major fission product with no long lived isotopes, although you have to very rigorously separate it from krypton, which does have some.)
Xenon isn't inert; it can form chemical compounds like xenon difluoride. In the body it's probably dissolving into cell membranes or other fatty components.
What do you mean by "no long-lived isotopes"? That fission only produces short lived Xenon isotopes? Then, what use would it be to harvest it from fuel?
For applications like in the article you want very long-lived or ideally stable Xe isotopes, which do exist.
The short-lived stuff decays away, leaving the safe stuff. When the isotopes decay away, they become other elements that are easily chemically separated. Or so I'd guess.
> Himal Gautam, the director of Nepal’s tourism department, which is responsible for regulating expeditions on the nation’s mountains, said in an interview that using the gas was “against climbing ethics,” […]
Okay, but then be consistent and also ban bottled oxygen and the services of Sherpas.
> […] and that it would hurt the country’s tourism industry and the Sherpas who help climbers by reducing their time on the mountain.
Ah, okay, there's the real reason. "Climbing ethics" my ass.
I've long held that climbing Everest has become a gross display of wealth and vanity and basically nobody should do it. There's no glory in being the 4000th person to do so. It's not glamorous. You're basically climbing over trash and dead bodies to do it.
Often inexperienced people with too much money are putting themselves, their sherpas and other climbers are risk by doing so.
Using bottled oxygen already made this substantially easier. But this Xenon is on a whole new level. I went looking for the cost and found [1]:
> After a week, the Brits could be back at their desks at home. They still pay an introductory price of an undisclosed amount. In future, such a short trip to Everest will cost around 150,000 euros.
From my understanding, that's 50-100,000 more than usual. The whole thing just reeks of Oceangate.
And for what? To take a selfie at the top and to brag to you're equally vacous and wealthy friends? It would be more ethical to stay home and just Photoshop yourself into a photo. ChatGPT can probably do it for you.
Nepal is a very poor country. Being a sherpa is one of the few (locally) high paying jobs there are. Sherpas risk their lives for this. At least on K2 or Annapurna you're more likely to find experiernced and technically capable mountaineers who won't endanger your life for a selfie.
Everest is not a technically difficult climb, as far as I understand it. The death zone and general conditions make it a challenge. Negate those with Xenon and it's just a really expensive walk.
I've climbed some mountains, and while I don't know if I would be capable of doing Everest, I do know that I wouldn't want to (unless I could do it like Goran Kropp: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göran_Kropp). I guess I could brag if I doped myself, took a helicopter past the Khumbu Icefall, and had servants carrying my stuff the whole way to the summit, but I could never be proud of myself for doing that.
I'm waiting until the trash pile on Everest is higher than the mountain itself. Everest isn't supposed to be easy to climb. If someone wants to do it faster/quicker - why would I care how. I'd still look at them and say you cheated.
Nitrous gas inactivates the cobalamin form of vitamin B₁₂ by oxidation. [0]
Vitamin B₁₂ deficiency …… at levels moderately lower than normal, a range of symptoms such as feeling tired, weak, lightheadedness, headaches, dizziness, rapid breathing, rapid heartbeat, cold hands and feet, low-grade fevers, tremor, cold intolerance, easy bruising and bleeding, pale skin, low blood pressure, sore tongue, upset stomach, loss of appetite, weight loss, constipation, diarrhea, severe joint pain, feeling abnormal sensations including numbness or tingling (pins and needles) to the fingers and toes, and tinnitus, may be experienced.
Thank you, that makes more sense than my reading. I thought the OP might have been comparing a single-legged trip vs a multi-stop "cruise", both in a similar sailing boat. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruising_(maritime)
> what used to be a deeply human and challenging journey into just another experiment in efficiency
Maybe it's always been an experiment in efficiency? Early Everest expeditions consisted of large support teams, setting records for sleeping at altitude, and inventing new breathing apparatus. Or maybe the challenge and the journey are over now?
> But it also makes me wonder if we’re turning what used to be a deeply human and challenging journey into just another experiment in efficiency.
I think that ship has sailed already. Now the focus should probably be on safety, economic benefit, and sustainability/minimizing environmental impact.
That Sherpa was born and lived on the mountain his whole life.
Everything he is was molded by his life.
His ability to make the climb came from years of experience
and knowledge.
The foreigner huffed some gas and slept in a high-tech tube a week before the climb.
I'll leave to the reader to decide which one deserves respect and admiration.
I find it quite amusing. A couple of years back a good friend of mine went to Everest basecamp. That wasn't even the summit. So they have WiFi up there now and I get a message from her. The message was "made it" with a selfie attached where she actually looked like she hated her entire existence and wondered what the hell she was doing with her life. It was visibly rammed and apparently it smelled of human shit.
I never blame the individual for this. Society has been pushing the concept of "success" and "achievement" for quite a while. I'm of the superstitious opinion that something divine forced the hand of AI to put an end to our endless pursuits and re-think this whole life of "work".
Because others are exploited and risk their lives to get these people up that peak. If it was only them going up on their own without expectations to be rescued if something goes wrong no one would have a problem with it.
Because I find it genuinely pathetic. That's what I considered cool when I was 8 but then I grew up and realised my actions have consequences and that life isn't about literally consuming as many things and experiences as you can regardless of the externalities.
Genuine technological innovation in adaptation to low oxygen. Nay-sayers say it does nothing. Guys climb Everest in a week using said innovation. You can't argue with results, so they switch to:
"Himal Gautam, the director of Nepal’s tourism department, which is responsible for regulating expeditions on the nation’s mountains, said in an interview that using the gas was “against climbing ethics,” and that it would hurt the country’s tourism industry and the Sherpas who help climbers by reducing their time on the mountain."
and
"From a medical point of view, off-label use without a scientific basis and with unknown health risks must be rejected"
So it simultaneously does nothing and is unethical, and it doesn't matter whether it works anyway, because even if it did, it'd be against made-up "medical" rules.
I've never seen a stronger case for telling very serious people to go fuck themselves.
I don't know, maybe the 10 prior weeks of sleeping in hypoxic tents might have had some effect too. If they walked off the street, huffed some Xenon then blasted up Everest that'd be amazing, but it sounds like people are overfocusing on the Xenon bit.
It doesn't have to be an achievement for humanity - it can just be a personal achievement.
Thousands upon thousands of people have done the Three Peaks (a famous walking route in the UK), but I'd still like to do it, and would feel a sense of satisfaction at succeeding.
"Only" about 6000 people have succeeded in climbing Everest as of mid-2022. Interestingly one third of all successful attempts ever have been since 2016, and nearly half of all summits are people doing it not for the first time.
Why does mountaineering need a future? Mountaineering should just be done. Stop.
The mountains have been scaled. All of them. We've been there, website seen what's to be seen. It's done, it's over. Just leave these grandiose wonders alone rather than destroying the natural beauty in the name of an ego boost.
Only the people that have been there have seen it. Why should experiences not be repeatable? Humanity doesn’t share a to-do list; you doing something doesn’t give me those experiences. If you want to pivot to the wear-and-tear or how people aren’t adhering to leave-no-trace that’s fine but a different argument
Everest in particular, should be shut down to climbers. It's a giant trash heap full of human waste and dead bodies. Usable only 2 weeks per year.
They should install a cable car or furnicular and let people go straight to the top any time of year. Tax it and give the money to the locals. Put a nice restaurant up there too. That would be cleaner and more practical than what we have now.
Why? Because he’s launching a business that sells Xenon-assisted Everest tours: https://www.furtenbachadventures.com/
These stories are never about uncovering an underground world of Xenon performance enhancement or discussing the science (which is much less optimistic about Xenon’s benefits). They’re always lazily relaying the PR information that Lukas Furtenbach gives them.
So while it’s true that Xenon appears to have some possible performance enhancing properties, all of these news pieces about how climbers are using Xenon always come back to this one same guy who is, coincidentally, trying really hard to sell people on expensive Xenon-assisted Everest tours.
Meth. It's meth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epinephrine_autoinjector
https://www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/co...
The only evidence is the claims from the person selling the expensive five-figure Everest packages. It’s the very definition of a conflict of interest.
They also use multiple treatments, not just Xenon. The hikers sleep in hypobaric chambers. Another comment said they used supplemental oxygen but were hiding details about how much.
There is no evidence or even head-to-head testing here. It’s all claims that come from one person, who is also trying to sell the treatment.
If something normally takes two weeks and some guy claims his novel method gets you up there in one, it’s at least easy to verify whether his novel method actually does do it.
All kinds of fancy "research" and "reasons" it will work, and the marks\\\\customers put in a financial and emotional investment in it working, so expect it to work.
Seems just about how placebos work best
It spikes HIF-1α → EPO for a day or two, but meta-analyses still doesn't show a real performance bump, let alone safety at 8 km. Feels less like innovation and more like mountaineering’s own carbon-plate shoes, except the failure mode here is cerebral edema, not a slow marathon time.
I wish all of these news articles would discuss the actual studies instead of lazily parroting the claims of the one guy who is trying to sell expensive Xenon-assisted Everest hikes.
These articles are always PR pieces for Lukas Furtenbach’s expensive Everest tours. Every single time I see the words “Xenon” and “Everest” in a headline, his name is in the article as the source.
They do, if you read them.
> While some doctors have used the gas in the past to “precondition” patients to low oxygen levels — for example, before major heart surgery — the practice hasn’t really caught on because “it hasn’t been as protective as one would hope,” he said.
> Mike Shattock, a professor of cellular cardiology at King’s College London, said “xenon probably does very little and there is virtually no reputable scientific evidence that it makes any difference.”
> Some research has shown that xenon can quickly acclimatize people to high altitudes, even as some experts say the benefits, if any, are negligible and the side effects of its use remain unclear.
A lack of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't work. It depends on what you mean by 'evidence.'
Take one or two reports.
A scientist would say, 'that's an anecdote.'
A lawyer would day, 'I can send you to jail with those two reports.'
I did read the article, which is how I knew Lukas Furtenbach was involved. Please don’t accuse people of not reading the article when they’re specifically talking about content of the article.
Anyway, my point was that if these articles wanted to be serious about the science, they’d lead with the studies and science.
Instead, they tack on weasel words (literally “some experts say” and “some research” as in your quotes ) in an attempt to make it feel like a both-sides style journalism while leaving Furtenbach’s claims as the headline and the main story.
Also, and quite interestingly, xenon isn't the only element that does this. Cobalt does something very similar: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6157393/
Athletic use is probably more common than people think. And I'd be absolutely shocked if Xe gas weren't already being used in racehorses. (You wouldn't believe the state of chemical warfare in that sport.)
There's also potential military use -- especially in combat divers. They're very limited by the amount of breathing gas they can carry. Anything to meaningfully cut oxygen use could be a game changer.
Now that the GWOT is over, the peacetime military has been cracking down on steroid use.
Unless you're doing completely stupid doses it can be managed safely, and it's not like the soldiers are not already doing something inherently risky.
Back during the 2000 dot-com boom crash I met a guy who got into a top business school in part by writing about the challenges of climbing Everest. He confessed drunkenly at a party to me that he'd never even left the USA...
I met a startup founder in my local community who would always bring up his ambitions to climb Everest. He made sure everyone knew and made it part of his personality.
Except, he was very out of shape and undeniably overweight. He was not doing any type of training or fitness activity. Everyone could see with their own eyes that this man was not on any path toward climbing Everest in any way.
Yet people around him always brought up his Everest ambitions like it was an amazing fact about him. I always wondered if it was some sort of litmus test to see who could be convinced to deny reality and follow what he said.
And then you wonder why so many young people flirt with communism or want to see the capitalist system burn to the ground. What's the point of ethics and hard work if those who just lie their way into much better opportunities will out-earn you by orders of magnitude? Granted, it's a bit more complicated than that, often those people also have connections, but the feeling still stands.
Not sure if meritocracy has been on a decline, or that we're now just more aware of it due to the internet.
Unethical people tend to get themselves better opportunities regardless of how society is organized.
Certainly there are people who succeed in business by doing what you say, but it’s not how most success happens.
When two people make a deal, voluntarily, at least rationally (unless it is charity) both expect to be better off.
The magic of the businessman is to connive his way into getting the largest slice of the 'better off'. He generally can't legally make a deal without generating value, but if he can capture it to the point the customer is only one iota better off he is a good businessman and no one has been defrauded.
There's a lot of narrow-sightedness in this zero-sum model of transactions.
In a properly functioning market, the limiting factor is competition. A business can't capture 99% of the "better off" because the guy down the street will undercut it by only capturing 98% and all the customers will go there. A customer likewise can't capture 99% because the business will decide it's not worthwhile and sell to customers who capture less. Somewhere in the middle is found equilibrium.
Bag-holding is different, it means there's some sort of trickery and the other side doesn't actually benefit from the transaction. And this does happen, but it's not the norm. Again, go take a look at your local shops. Which ones are engaging in this?
I'm not anti-capitalist, I just acknowledge this as a fundamental part of the human process. It might even be the case the businessman's incentive don't fully align with the stockholder/owner's incentive, in many case the businessman can profit at the expense of the company by capturing higher commission with side-effects that the company won't understand.
A clever businessman will get the better end of that, while still leaving his customer better off than if he hadn't transacted at all, as many witness at the car dealership.
That is not how the current US administration seems to see (foreign) trade. :)
I walked away from a full time job making $180K a year for 2 hours a day because the consulting company renting out my time wanted me to put 8 hours. I felt like I was helping them somehow fleece the client, even though the client probably had over a trillion dollars under management. In retrospect I was very foolish.
In the free market you have to learn sales, to do well. And most sales techniques are about making people realize they may need something (called “building the gap”) and then offering your solution. But your solution usually isn’t any good unless you raise money first.
In my case, I was too honest to overpromise to investors, or create fake volume for tokens, etc. So most investors walked, and it took years for me to build the products. Now I have them. But I am far behind those who overpromise and raise money fast, or create appearances of momentum, and act as if — they fake it til they make it. (Doesn’t need to be all the way as bad as Elizabeth Holmes.)
I have discovered a lot of ethical hacks over the years involving group dynamics, but in the meantime I had taken on hundreds of thousands in debt and repaid it. All for what… because I was too honest to stretch the truth too much.
If I was willing to do it, though, people downstream of me would have been much happier. And people diwnstream of you include your employees and your family and friends. It is a dog eat dog world out there… I have learned that total honesty has a price — you cannot overpromise to people downstream of you, either, otherwise they’ll be left holding the bag. It is better to overpromise to people upstream of you if you have people relying on you. It’s just not a perfect system.
I would have much rather been in a society which has UBI, free association and everyone has some discretionary income and isn’t always just trying to survive. Much more honest. And they wouldn’t even have to fake stuff to stay on disability or qualify for means tested stuff.
That's not why, particularly. They do so for various reasons:
- they compare the reality of capitalism with a nonexistent nirvana, rather than the reality of the alternatives. They haven't run the real counterfactual
- they gravitate to any philosophy that they're familiar with instinctively: most students are young, and they conceptualise "fairness" in terms of a loving parental figure with resources meting things out to them, and they think of the government in a similar way
- they believe countries they have heard are nice to live in, normally Scandinavian countries, aren't capitalist
- they don't know the realities of real non-capitalist countries such as the USSR or pre-capitalist China, or present-day Venezuela (not truly non-capitalist, but the central planning around their oil is their main problem), or East Germany, or Cuba
- they have gone to university, the only place where bad ideas can survive and be propogated out into the world
Let's not leave out think-tanks and orgs like the WEF that seem to exist only to launder the opinions of billionaires. And mainstream news publications like the New York Times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
While I don't disagree with many of your points, we shouldn't kid ourselves that we live in the best of all possible worlds for most working or middle class people.
Yet theres a difference between hitching a horse to a wagon to move things vs joining a bestiality cult that worships horses.
A university is hardly the only place for terrible ideas to thrive, just look at silicon valley culture and this orange site.
Yes I do want those assholes burned at the stake.
Similar story happens in many other areas. People are being squeezed from their money on all fronts. North American IT persons are rare exception of an ordinary person who can still make the ends meet and still have some healthy chunk left to enjoy life.
This is just exhibit 8345346 that this type of "free market" doesn't result in lower prices for consumers, but this grift has been going on for a long time now. Free market now means private investors are free to take over entire markets and monopolize them and bribe/lobby the government regulatory agencies to look the other way at best, or enact regulations that act as moats to defend their position against competitors at worst.
The current state of Canada (stagnating wages, exploding CoL) is what's coming everywhere in the west. The US seems to be most resilient to this, probably due to its status as the world reserve currency and a larger, more competitive economy.
I think it's worth asking if you have a free market at the point there's consolidation and it approaches monopoly/oligopoly territory.
A free market would be me with a sign in the corner, offering to perform surgery on your dog, with my engineering degree printed on a piece of paper and anesthetics I manufactured in my basement.
North America has severely limited the number of veterinarians and regulated the care, the monopolistic elements are likely largely a result of government intervention.
As an Indian, let me tell you, to accept something is wrong, and then just being fine about it, and just adjust your life to bad situations is how the fall of societies starts.
Eventually everything becomes fine and acceptable, and you learn over time to adjust yourself to everything, like every bad thing ever.
I wonder if the shorter time at altitude also reduced the chances of slower-to-develop high-altitude cerebral edema and pulmonary edema (HACE, HAPE). Some climbers have been sleeping in camp in small tubular pressurized tents to reduce daily apparent density altitude.
It kind of makes sense. A lot of business success is about being able to bullshit convincingly.
> In an interview, Mr. Carns said that his expedition had been in touch with the ministry, and clarified with the department that it had not taken the gas on the mountain.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVahys8MWLo
The book “Into Thin Air” by Jon Krakauer is an amazing firsthand account of the 1996 Everest disaster. The book does a great job helping you really understand how far your body is pushed in the death zone, and how you truly have nothing left to do anything other than get one foot in front of the other in a race against time. Just sitting down to “rest” was a likely death sentence and how people had to walk past because stopping to try and help would have likely meant sitting down next to them to die.
But as a recreational climber, why bother with xenon? Just inject EPO.
You almost certainly safer using whatever PED you can get your hands on if you’re trying to climb Everest.
Because if you can inject EPO then you don't need xenon. With EPO you can generate as many red blood cells your body can handle.
The point remains though, this is recreation so why not just hire Dr Ferrari and take cera or epo
As a recreational anything I'd say avoid wrecking your body to make some arbitrary numbers nobody will ever care about go up (or down)
I thought nowadays the sherpas practically carry you up there so it's of low risk to you.
Both wikipedia [1] and an expedition company [2] seem to put the deaths per year as <10 with it being dominated by people from Nepal who are presumably the sherpas doing all the work.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_died_climbi...
[2]: https://www.climbing-kilimanjaro.com/mount-everest-deaths/
4% chance of death sounds very high to me.
The people dieing are by far the sherpas which you aren't one of.
Not according to this graph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_died_climbi...
Most recreational activities don't come with an existing risk of death: PEDs likely reduce this relative risk in many riskier physical endeavors.
Well, from the article:
> The men wore masks hooked up to ventilators as an anesthesiologist slowly introduced higher levels of xenon into their systems.
The doctor named in the article seems to be[0] the head of the Department of Anesthesiology at Limburg hospital.
[0] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Fries-3
Use Xenon gas to climb Everest in a week? (12 points, 27 days ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43837865
Climbers using xenon gas to climb Everest (107 points, 4 months ago, 145 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42705180
The team used supplemental oxygen on the climb, with the starting altitude and flow rate not being reported [1]. This is speculative, but if they were using more oxygen than typical and starting at a lower altitude, that's a massive advantage.
Further, Andrew Ushakov traveled from NYC to the summit in just under 4 days this year without the use of xenon (but also with supplemental oxygen with unknown starting altitude and flow rate). He used a hypoxic tent to prepare as well, and depending on the accuracy of the reporting may have even spent less time doing that than the xenon team did [1].
[0] https://www.npr.org/2025/05/18/nx-s1-5398553/a-new-company-i...
[1] https://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2025/05/21/everest-2025-fas...
They will do this math eventually and then they will require xenon prep.
Yeah this is not your average mountain climber group, "normal" people could not do this just by xenon gas alone
I know people that made it to Kilimanjaro as pretty average middle class urbanites with no substantial climbing background, but that's probably at the edge of what's possible.
Kilimanjaro is an arduous hike. No technical knowledge or equipment is required. The main challenge on the mountain is altitude, which is countered by time spent acclimatising.
https://nepalmonitor.com/2025/03/19/nepal-overtourism-everes...
Climb as much as you like but clean up the waste you create.
Some special forces guys, record summit Everest time… let me guess, one is an SAS sniper with numerous recorded kills in Iraq or Afghanistan… but clearly he can’t talk much about it, he just needs you to know it… maybe some mi5 action in there… this is tailor made for a “bro-tube” channel.
Ive never done mountaineering but I become fascinated by these stories of people on the mountain and sometimes wonder if I could do it. I definately never will, theres lots of other things id rather invest my time in but I can definately see the allure and why people become obsessed with doing it.
Anyways, after all that I have zero desire to ever go near Everest or any other risky mountain climb.
https://www.youtube.com/@michaeltracy2356
Personally? I think it's a pretty cool achievement and is _the_ mountain to climb for a reason. I'm with the other commenter here. Chase your passions.
Is this the case in mountaineering circles, or are K2 and Annapurna the peaks to be respected?
https://nepalmonitor.com/2025/03/19/nepal-overtourism-everes...
Many of the neighbouring countries -- including Nepal, India, Tibet, Bangladesh -- are effectively open-air garbage dumps, where rivers and fields and cities are just awash with discards and garbage. In environmentally critical places where it massively impedes with the life of millions.
In a relative sense I just do not care about some infinitesimal amount of discarded air canisters on a lifeless rock at 10,000 feet. It seems like misdirected envy when people suddenly super care about that. In an ideal world they would leave only footprints, but in the grand scheme of things it just does not matter. Cue another "OMG look at these air canisters some rich guys left at 15,000 feet!" articles.
It's a bit like how the anti-AI cadre have taken to suddenly being incredibly concerned about the energy usage of AI. Despite everything else, it's AI that's going to heat the planet. They never cared about data centre power usage when it was serving their big tiddy goth anime GIFs, but if it's AI suddenly they lament this outrage.
But it has been, for a long time. Base camps, oxygen masks, advanced gear, etc all make climbing easier.
Similarly, should lifting 200 kg be made easier? It has been made easy, you can use a forklift and barely move your finger to do so. But this is not seen as an accomplishment; if you want to be considered a strong weightlifter, you have to lift an old-school barbell.
The biggest problem, as I can imagine, is not the dilution of the achievement, but the intensity of the stream if the climbers. Mt Everest is already full of climbers who follow each other at a short distance. Doubling this stream might ruin the experience altogether, or there would be large lines and inevitably large fees to jump them.
I used it in my Laser MSc has part of the mix for a CO2 laser (marks how long ago that was). CO2 for the optic properties, and Xe to reduce the electron temperature.
So the Xe in this case triggers a response in the human body, but people aren't quite sure why. Quite strange considering Xe is an inert gas.
Climbing Everest costs $50-100K though. If you can reduce the time each 'climber' spends on the mountain, its probably cost effective.
Xenon isn't inert; it can form chemical compounds like xenon difluoride. In the body it's probably dissolving into cell membranes or other fatty components.
For applications like in the article you want very long-lived or ideally stable Xe isotopes, which do exist.
Another fission product that might be worth recovering is rhodium, although not being a gas the process would be more involved.
Okay, but then be consistent and also ban bottled oxygen and the services of Sherpas.
> […] and that it would hurt the country’s tourism industry and the Sherpas who help climbers by reducing their time on the mountain.
Ah, okay, there's the real reason. "Climbing ethics" my ass.
Often inexperienced people with too much money are putting themselves, their sherpas and other climbers are risk by doing so.
Using bottled oxygen already made this substantially easier. But this Xenon is on a whole new level. I went looking for the cost and found [1]:
> After a week, the Brits could be back at their desks at home. They still pay an introductory price of an undisclosed amount. In future, such a short trip to Everest will cost around 150,000 euros.
From my understanding, that's 50-100,000 more than usual. The whole thing just reeks of Oceangate.
And for what? To take a selfie at the top and to brag to you're equally vacous and wealthy friends? It would be more ethical to stay home and just Photoshop yourself into a photo. ChatGPT can probably do it for you.
Nepal is a very poor country. Being a sherpa is one of the few (locally) high paying jobs there are. Sherpas risk their lives for this. At least on K2 or Annapurna you're more likely to find experiernced and technically capable mountaineers who won't endanger your life for a selfie.
Everest is not a technically difficult climb, as far as I understand it. The death zone and general conditions make it a challenge. Negate those with Xenon and it's just a really expensive walk.
[1]: https://abenteuer-berg.de/en/with-xenon-to-mount-everest-and...
I've climbed some mountains, and while I don't know if I would be capable of doing Everest, I do know that I wouldn't want to (unless I could do it like Goran Kropp: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göran_Kropp). I guess I could brag if I doped myself, took a helicopter past the Khumbu Icefall, and had servants carrying my stuff the whole way to the summit, but I could never be proud of myself for doing that.
I thought that mountain was mainly climbed by CEO's that let sherpa's carry their stuff?
That's why naked cavemen are the only ones to climb the mountain without being called cheaters!
Vitamin B₁₂ deficiency …… at levels moderately lower than normal, a range of symptoms such as feeling tired, weak, lightheadedness, headaches, dizziness, rapid breathing, rapid heartbeat, cold hands and feet, low-grade fevers, tremor, cold intolerance, easy bruising and bleeding, pale skin, low blood pressure, sore tongue, upset stomach, loss of appetite, weight loss, constipation, diarrhea, severe joint pain, feeling abnormal sensations including numbness or tingling (pins and needles) to the fingers and toes, and tinnitus, may be experienced.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide#Safety
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12_deficiency#Signs,_...
It’s like bragging about sailing around the world when in reality you did a cruise
But it also makes me wonder if we’re turning what used to be a deeply human and challenging journey into just another experiment in efficiency.
Not sure if that counts as progress. Curious how others see it.
Maybe it's always been an experiment in efficiency? Early Everest expeditions consisted of large support teams, setting records for sleeping at altitude, and inventing new breathing apparatus. Or maybe the challenge and the journey are over now?
I think that ship has sailed already. Now the focus should probably be on safety, economic benefit, and sustainability/minimizing environmental impact.
Foreigner climbs Everest in three days: "against climbing ethics"
Got it.
The foreigner huffed some gas and slept in a high-tech tube a week before the climb.
I'll leave to the reader to decide which one deserves respect and admiration.
Expensive way to have a bad time.
why the HATE so much lol
Genuine technological innovation in adaptation to low oxygen. Nay-sayers say it does nothing. Guys climb Everest in a week using said innovation. You can't argue with results, so they switch to:
"Himal Gautam, the director of Nepal’s tourism department, which is responsible for regulating expeditions on the nation’s mountains, said in an interview that using the gas was “against climbing ethics,” and that it would hurt the country’s tourism industry and the Sherpas who help climbers by reducing their time on the mountain."
and
"From a medical point of view, off-label use without a scientific basis and with unknown health risks must be rejected"
So it simultaneously does nothing and is unethical, and it doesn't matter whether it works anyway, because even if it did, it'd be against made-up "medical" rules.
I've never seen a stronger case for telling very serious people to go fuck themselves.
Thousands upon thousands of people have done the Three Peaks (a famous walking route in the UK), but I'd still like to do it, and would feel a sense of satisfaction at succeeding.
I doubt your Tesla example is true, but the summit news sound like stupid jokes at this point
That isn't true now. But it might be in a few years, if Tesla's genius CEO continues to alienate his customers.
The mountains have been scaled. All of them. We've been there, website seen what's to be seen. It's done, it's over. Just leave these grandiose wonders alone rather than destroying the natural beauty in the name of an ego boost.
Destroying a natural wonder in the name of impressing your buddies doesn't fall under that.
The US national parks are a great example of how that works.
That's it. Go out unto the world and do with that as you will
Going skydiving, auto racing, sailing, working out... All pointless if I'm understanding this logic.
The idea that such a subjective criteria should be used is more offensive than the hubris.
They should install a cable car or furnicular and let people go straight to the top any time of year. Tax it and give the money to the locals. Put a nice restaurant up there too. That would be cleaner and more practical than what we have now.