The MountainWorld™ Blog

Stangl Faked K2 Ascent: What Are We Climbing For?

News just came out this morning that Austrian speed climber Christian Stangl faked  his August 12 summit of K2. His was the only supposed summit of the season on K2, and the initial report was one of amazing speed and tenacity. According to his report, Stangl blasted from ABC to Camp 3 on K2, and then proceeded from Camp 3 all the way to the summit. 

His account, however, was called into question by numerous other climbers almost immediately, as is well-documented by ExplorersWeb. Despite defending his story numerous times, Stangl this morning - in the face of mounting evidence against him - admitted he did not in fact reach the summit of K2. (His primary sponsor, Mammut, has an update on their website.)

I don't know Christian, and don't care to comment on him personally. But, something in his written remarks struck a chord with me, especially having written extensively about ethics in climbing here on The MountainWorld Blog, and having just given a presentation on Everest Ethics last week in Aspen, Colorado.

According to the Mammut website, Stangl wrote of his actions on K2:

I suppose that I came to this from a mixture between fear of death and even greater fear of failure. Achievement and success were and are the determining factors in my sport. I think that I tried to suppress my personal failure after three summers and altogether seven attempts at this mountain. My sponsors did not pressure me into doing this. This pressure came from inside me. Fear of death is bad enough, but the fear of the failure in an achievement-oriented society is worse.

Fear of failure...What is failure? This, I think, is at the heart of many of the ethical dilemmas we see not only in the high mountains, but in our world as a whole. As I said in my presentation in Aspen:

The problem here is one of short-sighted simplification. We have come, in climbing and in our society, to simplify objectives, to make success and failure black-and-white, rather than see them as the transient shades of grey they are. Our society tends to tell us that the summit is success, and anywhere else is failure. The journey means nothing, the pursuit worthless without planting one's flag on the top...While perhaps simple, this reading of success and failure leads ultimately to shallow, and potentially dangerous, decision-making, both on and off the hill. When all that matters is the summit, what will we be willing to sacrifice to get there?

I ended my program in Aspen the other night - as I always do with my Everest Ethics talk - by invoking the words of Charlie Houston. And, since Stangl's controversy took place on K2, where Charlie was writing about in this passage, it's fitting to share them again here. Simple, eloquent, and profound, Houston's words are no less relevant today than they were when he penned them in 1953, and speak volumes about the true nature of success, failure, and why we climb:

Why climb mountains? The answer cannot be simple. It is compounded of such elements as the great beauty of clear, cold air, of colors beyond the ordinary, of the lure of unknown regions beyond the rim of experience. The pleasure of physical fitness, the pride of conquering a steep and difficult rock, the thrill of danger controlled by skill…How can I phrase what seems to me the most important reason of all? It is the chance to be briefly free of the small concerns of our common lives, to strip off non-essentials, to come down to the core of life itself. On great mountains, all purpose is concentrated on the single job at hand. Yet the summit is but a token of success. And the attempt is worthy in itself. It is for these reasons that we climb. And in climbing, we find something greater than accomplishment.

This is an important topic, so please discuss it below if you want. What do you think about Stangl's actions, and his defense? What about the concepts of success and failure in general?

(See a great interview, below, with Charlie Houston on Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS.)

 

Jake Norton is an Everest climber, guide, photographer, writer, and motivational speaker from Colorado.

Thursday Thought: Dan Pink on Autonomy & 21st Century Business

It was cold, brutally cold. The kind of cold that one only seems to find in the depth of February in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. And it was only exacerbated by the fact that we were ice climbing, which means standing in the cold for hours on end with your hands above your head.

My twelve year old body was trying hard to generate some heat at the belay station atop pitch 1 of Standard Route, and my father helped with cups of hot chocolate from our little plastic Thermos. I was cold, I was tired, I hated it...but really I loved it. Every frozen, painful, fearful moment of it.

I loved it because our guide and friend, Nick Yardley, allowed me to. He allowed me to because he made it fun. And, he made it fun not by slinging jokes or doing cartwheels on the ice, but rather by allowing me to be a climber, not a client; by not micro-managing my every move, but to figure it out based on what I already new. Nick made the suffering fun by giving me autonomy, by allowing me to make my own decisions on the ice (assuming I wasn't endangering myself or others), and thereby allowing me to take deep pride in the climb and in the process and eventual outcome.

As a guide today, I try to approach every outing with clients with the same perspective as Nick did years back: to give my clients autonomy (within reason and the bounds of safety), to allow them to figure out the problem at hand, to apply their skills and knowledge creatively and take pride in the process and the outcome. I try to focus on what Nick said to me in 1986:

I guess I will have done my job when you don't hire me anymore...when you no longer need me...when you've got the skills and confidence to climb by yourself. If I tell you what and how and when and why to do everything, you'll never be able to do any of it without me. 

Autonomy. A simple concept, tough to embrace and implement. I know this more than ever as my wife and I try to effectively rear our 2 year old daughter, Lila, helping her learn the skills necessary to live a confident, creative, caring, and compassionate life.  

Author and speaker Dan Pink has some great thoughts on motivation and autonomy. He speaks a great deal about how the old paradigm of fostering productivity by applying financial incentives simply does not work as well as we think it does. As he says: "There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does..."

Rather, he argues, we foster productivity and creativity by encouraging autonomy, mastery, and purpose. What do these fluffy words mean? He describes them as "the building blocks of an entirely new operating system for our businesses" and, I would argue, our lives:

• autonomy - the urge to direct our own lives
• mastery - the desire to get better and better at something that matters
• purpose - the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves

In other words, people need to feel connected to, involved in, their work in order to be successful and productive at it. They need to feel like they are a true part of it, rather than simply another cog in a big piece of machinery. And, they need to feel validated in being creative, in finding solutions to problems both current and future.

So, for today's Thursday Thought, rather than transcribe Pink's thoughts into this blog, I want to share some of his thoughts on video. I think, while very different, they echo those thoughts of Nick Yardley many years ago. They echo my approach to guiding and teaching. They echo what my wife and I are trying to foster in our children. And, most importantly, they speak to a new way to look at business, at life, at our world.

First, a short bit from PBS's News Hour on "What Drives Motivation in the Modern Workplace":

And, second, Pink speaking at TEDGlobal 2009:

Jake Norton is an Everest climber, guide, photographer, writer, and motivational speaker from Colorado.

Overdue Thursday Thought: Simone Moro and the Ethics of Everest

As many of you know, Everest, and the ethical issues surrounding it, have long been a part of my dialogue here on The MountainWorld Blog and elsewhere. I often speak to groups about Everest ethics, and it is a point of discussion in many a conversation. 

And, as 2010 the Everest season ramps up, we find the usual discussion whirling and swirling about: 

• Should commercial expeditions be allowed to operate on Everest?
• How should rescues and emergencies be handled on the mountain? 
• Is it ethical to bring amateur clients to the Top of the World?
• Is oxygen use unethical on Everest, or anywhere?

There is never an easy answer to ethical debates. Much of it comes down to personal style, preference, ability, and situation. And, as a result, ethical debates have a way of simmering for years, and boiling over when the right agitation comes along. (Just look at the sorry, squabbly state of our political system!)

With the high level of debate and sometimes mud-slinging that goes with Everest each year, it was refreshing to me to hear recently on ExplorersWeb from the renowned alpinist and climber, Simone Moro. 

Moro is a climbing veteran, and one of the most respected and successful alpinists in the world today. His climbs are legendary:

• First winter ascent of Makalu in 2009, alpine style without oxygen
• First ascent of 6950 meter Beka Brakai Chhok (Karakoram) in 2008
• First solo traverse of Everest, climbing the Southeast Ridge and descending the Northeast Ridge, in 2006
• First non-Polish winter ascent of an 8,000 meter peak, climbing Shishapangma in January, 2005
• Rescue of Tom Moores on Lhotse in 2001, earning him the Fair Play Pierre de Coubertin trophy from UNESCO, the Civilian Gold Medal from Italian president Carlo Azeglio Ciampi and the David Sowles Memorial Award from the American Alpine Club

And the list goes on.

Moro, one would think, might then follow the oft-repeated mantra that commercial expedition climbing, and expedition climbing in general, is simply "not right", that it is a bastardization of the sport, as is the use of supplemental oxygen on the high peaks. These are arguments that have been posed and debated time and time and time again. 

Is there some truth to these statements? Certainly. As I've discussed here before, climbing on Everest and other high peaks of the world needs some rethinking. There are bad decisions being made every year, and people being taken up high beyond their limits and beyond their skill levels.

But, that said, everyone has their own reality in climbing. Not everyone can be a Steve House, a Vince Anderson, or a Simone Moro. And, even Steve, Vince, and Simone had to start somewhere. By demonizing a segment of our industry which gets people into, and enthralled by, the mountains, don't we in the end limit and diminish the very sport we love? 

So, back to the point, and to my Thursday Thought: Simone Moro is hoping to climb Everest this year without oxygen. A veteran of heroic, light ascents on remote peaks, he'll be walking uphill this spring with 500 others, all climbing in different styles with different prerogatives and ideas. But, Simone, in his interview with ExplorersWeb, seems OK with this, saying:

[This spring][ will be an immersion in “high altitude tourism,” but the world and the mountains are - or should be - accessible and free for everybody to live their dreams. The only thing I hope for is that everyone there is honest in declaring and understanding what a summit climb is and what it is not; the difference between a new route vs the classical; and what is oxygen use and what is not. 

Those things should be obvious, but Everest history is full of mistakes, lies, lack of sense, reality and team spirit.

Anyway, I respect everybody and hope to follow my style of alpinism and realize something unusual, different or new, even in that crowded Base Camp. We'll see if I will be able to do it or not… 

What are your thoughts on climbing ethics? I'd love to hear more!

And, for extra credit, here's a cool video of Simone reaching the summit of Makalu:

Jake Norton is an Everest climber, guide, photographer, writer, and motivational speaker from Colorado.

Thursday Thought: Taking the Path of Obliquity

We've all heard it before, those famous words of Robert Frost about the path less traveled by making all the difference. But is it true? Do we sometimes arrive at our destination more effectively by taking the less direct, less focused route from point A to point B? 

In his wonderful book Everest: The West Ridge, Tom Hornbein writes that, as he approached the mountain, "at times I wondered if I had not come a long way only to find that what I really sought was something I had left behind." And, acknowledging this paradoxical drive to venture far when you know what you seek is close at hand, Hornbein includes just below some great Kipling: 

Something hidden. Go and find it.
Go and look behind the Ranges -
Something lost behind the Ranges.
Lost and waiting for you. Go!

So, is there something to taking the path less traveled, to not simply going from point A to point B in the most direct and quickest fashion? I think so. 

Just today I came across a wonderful book excerpt by economist and author John Kay entitled Think oblique: How our goals are best reached indirectly. In it, he of course makes a compelling case for taking the oblique path, referencing examples from Malcolm Gladwell to Bill Gates, the Panama Canal to Messner climbing Everest solo and without oxygen in 1980. (Interestingly, Kay also discusses the differences between big pharma companies Merck and Pfizer, something which I discussed a bit in my Brotherhood of the Rope post back in 2007.)

Kay's main point is simple: if we follow the hedonistic path, seeking only a direct route to profit or pleasure, we'll find neither. But, if we instead align our actions with our ethics, if we decide what we stand for and believe in and then chart a course based on those principles, both pleasure and profit will indeed follow. 

Today's Thursday Thought comes from the great utilitarian John Stuart Mill, from his autobiography written at the end of his life:

[Happiness is] only to be attained by not making it the direct end. Those only are happy (I thought) who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness: on the happiness of others, on the improvement of mankind, even on some art or pursuit, followed not as a means, but as itself an ideal end. Aiming thus at something else, they find happiness by the way.

Thoughts, comments, reactions, ideas? Please share them!

Will you take the path of obliquity?

Jake Norton is an Everest climber, guide, photographer, writer, and motivational speaker from Colorado.

Thursday Thought: Hegel, MLK, Obama, and the Dalai Lama

I definitely tend toward the left side of the political spectrum, and identify myself more as a Democrat than otherwise. But, I make a conscious effort not to be partisan...I try my best to praise the positive things the "other side" does and accomplishes, and make my voice heard when the leaders I support are, in my estimation, making bad decisions.

This, to me, is the very essence of democracy: The ability - and, in fact, the need - to voice our disagreement with those in power, whether they be friend or foe. As the historian Henry Commager wrote: If our democracy is to flourish, it must have criticism; if our government is to function it must have dissent.

So, it was with dismay that I heard President Obama chose not to meet with the Dalai Lama while he was in Washington to accept the Lantos Human Rights Prize. I'm a supporter of Tibet and it's quest for spiritual autonomy, but, even more so, I feel strongly that, for us to be a leader on the world stage, we must be willing to make a stand, to defend our beliefs and our ethics...regardless of the political capital on the table.

Certainly, President Obama felt that a meeting with the Dalai Lama would create friction in US-China relations. It almost certainly would. But, our ethics and beliefs should transcend our short-term priorities. By meeting with the Dalai Lama - which has been done by all sitting US presidents since George H.W. Bush - Obama would have sent a clear message to China, and to the world, that we as a nation believe what we say, stand up for our core values, and have a true desire to make the world a better place for all people.

Today's Thursday Thought offers a little advice on taking a stand to President Obama, and indeed to all of us, from the great minds of Georg Hegel and Martin Luther King, Jr:

To be independent of public opinion is the first condition of achieving anything great.
- G.W.F. Hegel

Cowardice asks the question: Is it safe?
Expediency asks the question: Is it politic?
Vanity asks the question: Is it popular?
But conscience asks the question: Is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular,
but one must take it because it is right.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

And, for those who are interested, here is a video of the Dalai Lama accepting the Lantos Prize on Tuesday:

Jake Norton is an Everest climber, guide, photographer, writer, and motivational speaker from Colorado.

Ethics on Everest...and in all our lives.

As any of you who often visit The MountainWorld Blog know, I have written quite a bit about the ethics on Everest...and its greater implications for life off the mountain, for what actions on Everest can and do say about ethics in our society, in our world.

This morning, through Google Alerts, I came across a podcast by Sage on the site Quirky Nomads. The piece, entitled Back to Mount Everest, is entertaining and thought provoking. I encourage all of you to listen to it - you can by clicking here.

I won't transcribe the entire podcast, as it is better listened to with the benefit of Sage's inflection and verse. However, her ending I think is worthy of posting here:

We could all get up today, eat breakfast, go to work, go to school or the living room and - irritable and tired - walk past someone who needs help.

Big help, or small help, or the kind of help you know will take all day...and you've got to pick Katie up from swimming!

Or...we could stop...we could squat down and say: "What can I do? Tell me."

Well put, Sage. The events we have seen unfold over the years on Everest are not unique to the mountain. They are not confined to the oft-selfish pursuit of climbing the high peaks. Sadly, they are everywhere.

From the world's reluctance to get involved in the burgeoning crisis in Darfur to a society which is increasingly disjointed, polarized, people separated from their neighbors, their friends.

As I stress in my keynote presentations, the joy of climbing Everest, of reaching goals, of living life in general does not come from standing on the top. The true joy comes in the journey, the adventure of the climb and the relationships and humanity which stem from it.

When we get too focused on the end goal, on the top at all costs, the summit-or-plummet mentality, we lose the ability "to stop, squat down and say: 'What can I do? Tell me.'"

So a goal for all of us today...and everyday:

Find someone in need. A relative. A friend. A stranger.

Stop your daily business for a moment. Reach out to that person. See what you can do to help them.

They will be thankful for it, and so will you.

- Jake Norton is an Everest climber, guide, photographer, writer, and motivational speaker from Colorado.

David Sharp, Everest, ethics, & climbing

Through David Zinger's blog, I came across a great discussion on a great website, the Ethics Scoreboard. This article is insightful, and brings up many essential issues regarding the 2006 death of David Sharp on Everest as well as how we deal with ethical decisions in difficult situations.

I especially enjoyed what the author, Jack Marshall, concluded with:

The significance of the David Sharp tragedy is not that the mountaineers did the wrong thing. Of course they did the wrong thing. Nor is it that they are callous or unethical people, for they are probably no more so than you or I. The importance of the story is that it vividly shows how difficult it can be to make even obvious ethical choices when powerful non-ethical considerations are in our sights. Every one of us has a goal or a dream or a desire that could make us walk by a dying man. It is our responsibility to recognize what those goals, dreams and desires are, and to force ourselves not to forget about right and wrong as we approach them.

How true that is.

So, the big question for us all:

As you ascend your mountain, as you move toward your biggest dream in life, where are you prepared to stop, change direction, and follow your ethical principals instead of the route to the top?

Everest Ethics

I just came across an interesting video on the Forbes website. It is an interview with Everest climber Robert Anderson by Forbes Adventure columnist Jim Clash regarding the tragic deaths and happenings on Everest in May, 2006. Robert, a very accomplished climber, has thoughts on the subject which echo mine from my post - The Ethics of Everest - written back in June. This is certainly a topic which deserves more discussion, and it is nice to see a media outlet as big as Forbes giving some real attention. To see the interview, go to: http://www.forbes.com/video/?video=fvn/adventurer/jc_everest060506

The video was first brought to my attention by EuroClimbing.

Everest Ethics

The Ethics of Everest...

Another Everest season has just come to completion. As usual, it was filled with stories of success and failure, grand achievement and broken records. But, with all the fantastic news coming from the mountain this spring - including Apa Sherpa logging an incredible 16th (yes, SIXTEENTH!) summit -  there were disheartening signs of the changing ethical landscape on the slopes of Everest.

 

In the following article I would like to share with you some of my thoughts about ethics and priorities on the slopes of Everest. I will begin the following with the caveat that I was not on Everest this spring, and thus speak from afar, from a perspective of 20/20 hindsight. But, having been on the mountain 5 times, I feel that even from this perspective I have some insights into the situation.

 

On the evening of May 14 and the morning of the 15th, David Sharp, a 34 year old British climber, lay dying just below the First Step on the Northeast Ridge route. Reports indicate that roughly 40 people walked past him en route to and from the summit. No one stopped to lend the man a hand. No one was willing to sacrifice their summit, their dream, to help a fellow human being.

 

Perhaps there was no possibility of rescue. Perhaps David would have died regardless of assistance from other climbers. Either way, the actions on the mountain this spring beg the question: How much is the summit of Everest worth? Do mountainous goals legitimize the sacrifice of our humanity and compassion?

 

Having had the good fortune to stand on top of the world twice, I can say with certainty to anyone caught in a similar situation in the future: The summit is not worth the sacrifice of one's humanity. Yes, reaching the top is a wonderful experience. But, in the end, the summit is merely a small patch of snow sitting upon a big hunk of rock...and thus is not material for sacrificing humanity.

On the morning of May 7, 2001, my teammates John Race, Tap Richards and I had just begun our summit bids on what was my second expedition to the mountain. En route to Advanced Basecamp, we encountered Tibetan yak herders carrying two injured Chinese glaciologists down the mountain. Both men were suffering from advanced pulmonary and cerebral edema; if left unaided, they would soon die. Our decision was simple: We aborted our summit bid and began the arduous task of carrying two men down the Rongbuk Glacier. I blew out my knee in the rescue, ending my expedition with a resonant POP...but both Mr. Gao and Mr. Li lived to see their families again.

 

Three weeks later, my teammates were going for the summit via the NE Ridge. During the course of their summit bid, they ended up abandoning their summit hopes to rescue 5 people - 3 Siberians, one American, and one Guatemalan. The final rescue took place a mere 45 minutes from the top. Did they hesitate? Not a bit. Again, the tiny patch of snow lying at 29,035 feet is just that...a patch of snow. It will be there next year, and the year after that. And, in the end, standing on it does not change one's life. Reaching out to change the lives of others - no matter how short those lives may last - does.

 

In his famous book Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig writes: To live only for some future goal is shallow. It's the sides of the mountain which sustain life, not the top. Here's where things grow. I would add to Pirsig's observations that it is on the sides of the mountain where we grow, not on the top. And, there are times when that growth comes from sacrificing our own goals, dreams, and ambitions to reach out and assist others.

 

We must have goals in our lives, and we must aim for those goals, go after them with everything that we have and everything that we are. But, the important part of our goals is not reaching the end mark, crossing the finish line, but rather the experiences on the sides of our mountains. And, again, sometimes we must let go of Machiavellian ambitions, sacrificing our ambition so that we don't sacrifice our humanity, echoing the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.: there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, not politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right.

- by Jake Norton