Paul's Here

Youngest Teen climbs Mt. Everest

10 posts in this topic

13-year-old American climbs Everest

The youngest climber to reach the peak of Mount Everest hugged his tearful companions and told them he loved them. Then 13-year-old Jordan Romero took the satellite phone and called his mom.

"He says, 'Mom, I'm calling you from the top of the world,'" a giddy Leigh Anne Drake told The Associated Press from California, where she had been watching her son's progress minute by minute on a GPS tracker online.

"There were lots of tears and 'I love you! I love you!'" Drake said. "I just told him to get his butt back home."

With Saturday's success on the world's highest mountain, at 29,035 feet (8,850 meters) above sea level, Jordan is just one climb from his quest to reach the highest peaks on all seven continents.

The teenager with a mop of long curly hair — who climbed Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa when he was 9 years old — says he was inspired by a painting in his school hallway of the seven continents' highest summits.

"Every step I take is finally toward the biggest goal of my life, to stand on top of the world," Jordan said earlier on his blog.

--------------

"When a unique person with that spirit comes along, we have to encourage it," Edwards said. "I'm excited he made it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how parents can let a kid endanger themselves in such a way. Close to 10% of Everest climbers (216 out of 2,700) have been killed there, and it would seem that a kid would be much more at risk of exposure than an adult.

It's crazy. Kids are not adults, they shouldn't be allowed to take such risks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand how parents can let a kid endanger themselves in such a way. Close to 10% of Everest climbers (216 out of 2,700) have been killed there, and it would seem that a kid would be much more at risk of exposure than an adult.

It's crazy. Kids are not adults, they shouldn't be allowed to take such risks.

A couple of points:

1. It does not follow that because ten percent of climbers die, the risk is 10% to everyone.

2. "it's crazy" is not an argument. You need to find how his parents motivated their decision to allow him to do that (if available), and contradict it with logic. Who knows, maybe you'll be surprised, and find yourself unable to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A couple of points:

1. It does not follow that because ten percent of climbers die, the risk is 10% to everyone.

Indeed not - all things being equal, a kid is at greater risk because their mass is lower with relation to their skin surface, so they loose body heat faster. Now, said kid might have more skill than most Everest climbers, but this is unlikely. In any case, an entire category of dangers on Everest are not impacted much by skill levels (e.g., avalanche & storm).

2. "it's crazy" is not an argument. You need to find how his parents motivated their decision to allow him to do that (if available), and contradict it with logic. Who knows, maybe you'll be surprised, and find yourself unable to do so.

This is not a court of law. I don't have to grant the parents the benefits of the doubt here. At 13, one is a kid and unable to make such decision for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A couple of points:

1. It does not follow that because ten percent of climbers die, the risk is 10% to everyone.

Indeed not - all things being equal, a kid is at greater risk because their mass is lower with relation to their skin surface, so they loose body heat faster. Now, said kid might have more skill than most Everest climbers, but this is unlikely. In any case, an entire category of dangers on Everest are not impacted much by skill levels (e.g., avalanche & storm).

2. "it's crazy" is not an argument. You need to find how his parents motivated their decision to allow him to do that (if available), and contradict it with logic. Who knows, maybe you'll be surprised, and find yourself unable to do so.

This is not a court of law. I don't have to grant the parents the benefits of the doubt here. At 13, one is a kid and unable to make such decision for themselves.

Actually the bigger one's mass the more heat they use or burn off, hence why a short Eskimo can take the cold better than a tall African. But, that is not really the point I think you are attempting to get at.

A parents job is not to solely protect a child although that is part of it. A parent's job includes raising the child to become an independent person that has the intellectual tools to take (live in this world) on the world. I can quote from a large amount of people's biographies that demonstrate amazing things that people can do at a young age when they attempt to do so.

You may choose not to allow your children the opportunity to achieve amazing things as there is risk. But the nature of life is that it is full of risk and parents can do just as much harm by not letting their children accept the risk and build the confidence needed for life as they overcome those risk and achieve values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray - climbing the Everest involves a level of risk that has nothing to do with preparing for everyday life.

And I'm talking of loosing heat through exposure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points:

1. It does not follow that because ten percent of climbers die, the risk is 10% to everyone.

Indeed not - all things being equal

All things are not equal. That is precisely the reason why your first inference, and now this second one, are both wrong.

2. "it's crazy" is not an argument. You need to find how his parents motivated their decision to allow him to do that (if available), and contradict it with logic. Who knows, maybe you'll be surprised, and find yourself unable to do so.

This is not a court of law.

"It's crazy" is also not an argument outside a court of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray - climbing the Everest involves a level of risk that has nothing to do with preparing for everyday life.

And I'm talking of loosing heat through exposure.

There is an inherent risk for every value that is obtained. Usually, the larger the risk, the larger the value. As long as the person is objective about what is required to achieve their stated goal/value which includes the risk, it is not up to you to determine whether of not it is worth the risk for them to take the actions demanded to achieve their chosen value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray - climbing the Everest involves a level of risk that has nothing to do with preparing for everyday life.

And I'm talking of loosing heat through exposure.

If you noted in the article, this "kid" has been climbing since much younger age ("climbed Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa when he was 9 years old") and they chose the time of the year when the weather on Mt. Everest is least severe, and had climbed to about 8000 meters before. Jordan was with his father during the climb and "helicopter paramedic Paul Romero and his girlfriend have trained Jordan for top-level mountaineering."

And this is not some wild, out of context hike: "And in January, 17-year-old Johnny Collinson of Utah became the youngest person to climb the highest peaks on all seven continents."

So there are many kids who are doing this type of mountain climbing.

It is up to each parent to decide what risk his child will be allowed, and a lot of the choice is based upon the parents experience. It is evident that Jordan's parents are experience mountain climbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites