Nitpick from a former partial Everest climber. The ratio of deaths to summit successes used to be about 5% but the majority of climbers, including me, turn around before getting there.
I think the death ratio is down now there are pretty much fixed ropes the whole way to the summit on the south side. The 'Into Thin Air' deaths were because they lost their way in a storm but now you just clip onto the guide rope and walk up/down.
The attempt to death ratio is probably more like 0.5% or 0.2% though there aren't really proper figures on number of attempts.
According to Wikipedia the rate of deaths to summit attempts is more like 1%. They cite the Himalayan Database as their source for that figure; I'm not sure how accurate that is.
I'm assuming by "summit attempt" they mean something like ascending above the high camp, so that wouldn't include people who abandon the climb lower down the mountain?
(Note: that link contains photos of frozen human corpses, so maybe don't click it if you're squeamish.)
My understanding is that many of these bodies are clearly visible from the trail as you climb the mountain. Imagine seeing the well-preserved corpse of someone who previously attempted the dangerous feat you're now attempting... I don't want to find out what that feels like.
At least one body known as "Green Boots" [1] is used as a common milestone. His identity is unknown for certain.
The reason one does such things, though, is because they're difficult, so I'd imagine the bodies are motivating - focus or you'll be the next milestone.
The irony of a website telling the story of commercialization of climbing the Everest, and the risks involved, while bombarding you with full page ads to buy a climbing package every couple minutes…
I also wonder, with so much money going into these expeditions for many decades, how hard would it be to build some kind of safe house not too far from the summit, with oxygen / heating supplies delivered by drone?
Very very hard. Purpose built high performance helicopters can barely make it to the Everest summit on ideal days. The air gets so thin they struggle with lift while hovering which to need to land.
It can and is both imo. It's technically hard to get supplies up that high and culturally people wouldn't want so obviously lessen the accomplishment of getting to the summit.
On the other hand DJI has flown their regular consumer Mavic 3 Pro(although I bet it has been modified in some way) all the way to the top, so I have no doubt that with enough of them you could construct almost anything. Not that it would be allowed or even desirable by anyone there.
The helicopter flight that landed on the summit briefly was helped by some strong updrafts according to the pilot. It also looks like it was a number of flights.
I'd be concerned that if you make it too safe, people will find another hill to die on.
The density of the air on Mount Everest is about 3/8 of that at sea level. So getting enough lift would be difficult. To the sibling commenter's point, I think a drone would be a lot easier than a piloted helicopter, since you can make the whole thing out of beryllium if you have to.
That was my point, DJI already demonstrated a drone going all the way from base camp to the summit.
You also have a stream of hundreds of people climbing it daily. If each one carries a few hundred grams payload to help with construction, or a sherpa takes an extra O2 cylinder every once in a while...
I know nothing about climbing, but thought, given the volume of people and money, it doesn't look like a "greatest feats of engineering"-level project to save a few dozen lives.
Given the sheer amount of people going there, I would've thought they had set up multiple routes with different difficulty levels and amenities like carved out paths / stairs, bridges, and tourist shops.
But I was questioning my own assumption there and as it turns out there's "only" a few hundred people a year that try to make it to the summit, with a total of about 12.000 people that did since the 50's. That said, the surrounding national park gets 100.000 visitors per year, and 500 people a day go up to Everest Base Camp, which is already over five kilometers high up (although people can start from a town with an airport at 2804 meters high).
It's hard to imagine just how much the height of Everest affects the feasibility of any "normal" infrastructure as a tourist spot. The air density is exceptionally thin (so thin that even helicopters cannot climb past a certain point), and the lack of oxygen is literally killing you at a cellular level the longer you're there. I can't even fathom getting building equipment up there to set anything up, and no one could man any of the infrastructure on a long term basis.
The 'normal infrastructure' stops at about 5200m. On the Nepal side there's a guest house there where you can stay without climbing permits and the stuff get there via human porters or yaks. On the Chinese side there's a road and you can drive a car to base camp and there are some local shop/bar type stuff.
Above that in Nepal it's just tents carried by human porters. In China/Tibet there's an advanced base camp which is like a village supplied by yak but without shops/public facilities, just expedition tents.
The trek to the 5200m stuff on the Nepal side is a nice trip and cheap once you get to Kathmandu.
Traditionally Sherpas only make up a small percentage of "native" workers and they they tend to work in more mountaineering adjacent roles (fixing ropes, etc.) which come with more prestige, money and better equipment donations from privileged clients.
Grunt work (porters, cooks, etc) is done by migrants from lowlands, on poor wages, with poor equipment and often effectively at higher risk despite not being involved in, for example, summit pushes. They do not benefit from the biological adaptations, nor noble savage mystique payday.
Yeah, I remember reading about this and the reality is, Everest is still a very extreme environment even by today’s standards. It’s very expensive and risky to fly helicopters in the thin atmosphere and weather conditions so it’s very hard to get material up and down.
Are the odds really better though? A quick search reveals an Everest death rate of between 1% - 1.6% depending on the period. Suicide success rate seems at least an order of magnitude higher (maybe more).
No, suicide success is around 1%. That success rate varies widely with method. But if, for example, you just down a bunch of pills and then tell someone, you're extremely likely to live.
Your odds of dying while climbing it are better than while attempting suicide. And most of the bodies just...stay.