Darn those filthy, over-industrialized Tibetans for polluting those mountains with ozone!
According to the Live Science article, the heights of Tibet have as much ozone in their thin atmosphere as many heavily-polluted cities. They add that, while this may not bring about real problems among climbers, it may exacerbate any medical problems which develop while those fools try to drag their boots to the top of a big-a** glacier-covered rock.
My advice: stay in the valleys, unless somebody is actually shooting at you or unless you are working toward a deeper understanding of the actual atmosphere and scientific exploration of extreme climates, etc. Necessity and hard science should be the only excuses for risking one's life -- and those of your sherpas -- to peek over a peak. Precisely what does it prove for a man to climb Everest for the sake of the climb, today (other than how self-centered he is and how bored or dissatisfied he is with that same self, that is. And, if he's bored and dissatisfied with himself, what must he therefore do to the rest of us)?
And, now, we have even better reasons for staying below and breathing deeply of philosophies instead of the rarefied air from way up there. Wanna risk your life? Go chase a giant squid. Become a soldier. Join the space program. Something. It doesn't matter what you do, but do it for more than a boost to your ego. You might actually learn a few things about something other than yourself, that way.
4 comments:
A scientist myself by trade, I question and critique the world around me, and I am disturbed at the often implicit trust that nonscientists place in the idea of the value of science. Why should scientific endeavors hold any greater inherent value than others? Why is summitting a peak in pursuit of "scientific exploration" somehow a better "excuse" for overcoming the mental, emotional, logistical, and physical challenges involved? It would seem that you, Rebekah, as an artist in word and color, should have a better understanding of this than you do: science is not the only useful goal. In fact, climbing and mountaineering are arts.
Too, what does climbing and mountaineering prove? Well, why should it prove anything to anyone? You're essentially asking, "of what use is it to the world?" Okay, of what use were, say, lasers when they were first invented? (None.) Of what use are fields of abstract higher mathematics such as, e.g. Topology (in which a cup is the same as a doughnut, because they both have one hole)? Granted, mathematics is arguably not science, but billions are the dollars spent upon it. Much more of practical use could be said to have come out of mountaineering and climbing---who do you think is driving the technological advances that, say, the military special forces use when making technical assaults on mountain strongholds? ("Afghanistan" ring a bell?)
And in terms of the personalities involved, scientists as a whole are for more egotistical, arrogant, and overbearing than climbers who have lived through their first 3 years of technical leads. Ego has little to do with mountaineering (a quite different sport than "climbing"). At least, that is, with successful mountaineering. Those "enjoy" this sport (if that word can honestly be used) know that the mountains are without mercy, forgiveness, or malice; ego only serves to kill its owner faster. Success in the mountains is a lesson in harshness, discipline, and humility. A great mountaineer once said: "We don't climb simply because the mountains are there," (a reference to Mallory), "we just tell that to nonclimbers because they could not otherwise understand."
Fundamentally, mountaineering forces us to examine life - all life, including our own place in the grander scheme. To end on a philosophical note, since you seem to approve "breathing deeply" of such things: an unexamined life is not worth living. (Socrates.)
I figure the Tibetans are hoarding ozone, and that's what has caused the polar holes in the ozone layer.
Sorry, I've had some difficulties posting for a few days, now. Mostly, it's an attention span thing, but there's also a frustrating tech issue or two.
anyway, anonymous, why torture the body and risk the Sherpas to grasp the grander scheme from some desolate peak? You can get a really spiffy view of that same scheme from a little solitary time on, say, Colorado's front range (or, in my neighborhood, by sitting and listening to the Mississippi river flow past), and if you've fallen and can't get up, the paramedics can get to you more easily. An exammined life doesn't necessarily require a self-tortured body.
You say, "Granted, mathematics is arguably not science, but billions are the dollars spent upon it. Much more of practical use could be said to have come out of mountaineering and climbing---who do you think is driving the technological advances that, say, the military special forces use when making technical assaults on mountain strongholds? ("Afghanistan" ring a bell?)"
But, while mathematics may not be a science, it is the primary tool in the process of scientific study. Billions are spent upon it to hone it, and without it, all those technical assaults would have been purely fantasy, since just about every piece of equipment you use (other than your own muscles and, maybe, if you're peculiar and dim, a silly-ass animal-skin parka) required advanced math to bring it up to spec. Thinsulate or other, newer synthetic insulating fibers? Better living thru chemistry requires basic calculus, too. Medications? ditto. Portable heat supplies? yup. High-tensile-strength, cold-durable cables? Uh huh. Metals which don't get brittle under extreme cold? You betcha. We get plenty of something long-term useful out of mathematics.
As to climbing the mountains in Afghanistan to get Osama... isn't that what "Daisy Cutters" are supposed to be for? ;-)
While there are things to be learned (science) from the act of scaling a bluff or two, I have a little trouble with your contention that it is an art. From all I've studied about the world of art (fine and other) the entire point is to take what emotions, dreams, perceptions, and epiphanies are within a single human mind and share those with an outside presence (usually a crowd of other people, but sometimes a deity). Art is an act of communication. You may be communing with nature, but the rest of us see in you very little more that what we see when Lance Armstrong rides across France: freakishly superior athleticism on scientifically advanced equipment. There doesn't seem to be any attempt to make a clear act of communication beyond gee-whiz-I-can-do-it. And most of us don't really want to hear what little goes on inside the head of athletes (or for that matter, artists, and most scientists, when you get right down to it).
And this she says knowing full well that the sentiment may be equally directed toward her.
John- I think you're right about those Tibetans... the bustards! That's probably why China is so interested in the Himalayas, too.
Post a Comment