Comment by jamiedumont | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamiedumont | Hacker News Reader

There was a time about ten years ago I worked with a few people who had climbed Everest (one multiple times) and a handful more that were due to in the next couple of years. We worked in a climbing shop, and the regulars were all experienced climbers, working only to save enough for the next expedition.

The topic of oxygen had come up and almost everyone was all in favour of it until one guy explained he wouldn't be alive had he decided to use oxygen. He got cut off between two camps in bad weather, and were he relying on oxygen he would have likely run out; and subsequently passed out and died in the cold. As he was instead properly acclimated, he could ride out the storm as long as he stayed warm, which was relatively easy because he didn't need to worry about oxygen consumption.

Whether his story was true or not, it highlighted that it might be better to "be more" than "have more". The idea has stuck with me since, and whenever I'm faced with the choice between a shortcut past problem using some external resource or taking the longer, slower route of learning it/training properly I always go for the latter. It's not sexy, but has served me pretty well.

It's been an interesting thought-experiment these past few months as the talk around AI has become deafening. I know I'll be on the wrong side of history eventually, but I still prefer to "earn my turns" to borrow a metaphor from backcountry skiing.

I'm not sure it works quite like that - you have to acclimatize to the altitude whether you are using bottled oxygen or not. Going without oxygen can be considered a bit antisocial as you're more likely to collapse high up and need others to rescue you, unless you are happy for them to walk by while you die.

I’ll confess to being ignorant on the science. For instance I know that many of the local guides don’t use oxygen, but attributing that capability to time at altitude (“training” for lack of a better word) or genetics (on the back of generations of “training”?).

Either way, I like the thought experiment! :D

The sherpas probably have a bit of genetic advantage having lived in the mountains for generations. And they probably also have some acclimatization and training benefits from spending all season at altitude and working really hard there. But I think past a certain altitude, it simply doesn't help enough. Your body just starts tearing itself apart and shutting down due to a lack of sufficient oxygen.

Genetics and training might help for a while but it won't help for long.

The "local guides" work kind of splits into two parts. The vast majority of the work the Sherpas and Tibetans do is logistics, lugging tents, ropes, food and the like up to the various camps, and no one uses oxygen for that. Oxygen is pretty expensive, like $400 for a cylinder that lasts a few hours. The last bit guiding up to the summit, the guides are often westerners but even when they are locals they usually use oxygen for the summit. I had a go climbing and when you turn off the oxygen you don't collapse or anything but you can climb like 3x faster with it on, and you get a gradual body deterioration with it off, at the high altitudes - I got to 7900m.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com