Because it's there?

Hey Folks -

Sir Edmund Hillary who, with Sherpa guide Tenzing Norgay, first reached the top of Mt. Everest, the world’s tallest mountain, died recently.

By all accounts Hillary was a good man, a New Zealand beekeeping regular guy. His climbing the mountain made Mr. Hillary Sir Hillary, but while he was no longer a beekeeper, he was still a regular guy, and as Sir Hillary he significantly helped the Sherpa people of Nepal via philanthropy.

I admire his courage and determination and respect his homeland, New Zealand; so I mean no disrespect toward any of that. I do, however, find the whole thing puzzling and instructive regarding the loony human race.


OK, it was dangerous and demanding - some thought it impossible - to climb Mt. Everest. But a lot of things are dangerous and demanding - perhaps impossible. Choosing to live in Iraq or Palestine to work for peace is dangerous and demanding; treating the sick during an Ebola epidemic is dangerous and demanding. Those involved in such activities, however, aren't lionized like Hillary and Lindbergh - even though there is much to argue that they are the greater heroes.

Doesn't it seem strange? Is it a good reason to climb a mountain simply "because it is there"? Is that a better reason than "to achieve peace" or "to heal the afflicted"?

I understand that the climb was "an adventure," a demonstration of "man's indomitable spirit," and all that, but - while such talk made sense to me in my youth - now it seems an "imperial" artifact and foolish.

Maybe it's just the difference of age and youth. I don't know.

- Uke Man