If Sherpas are on the whole choosing to guide expeditions in preference to other choices, who are we to tell them they're making the wrong choice in life? Is it because we know more about the risks of mountain climbing, and the compensation they receive for taking that risk, than they themselves do?
Is it moral for me to analyse your life of bad habits, of my own judgement, and plan a better life, also of my own judgement, for you?
Ah, the false freedom of "it's their choice!" A fine way of avoiding the conversation. The guy in the article brings up a conversation he had with some Sherpa in which the Sherpa says he is making the choice between risking his life and feeding his family. That's the point here. Are you going to tell the Sherpa he can't even have the conversation because he made his choice and so he gave up his right to talk about it?
I'm glad all these HN commenters recognize that these folks made an economic decision and that there are other ones possible, like moving to Delhi to be a doorman or Dubai to do construction. Now that we've gotten the obvious out of the way can we get to the interesting conversation, that of what these choices are driven by? This isn't a question of the morality of analyzing bad habits. It's like ending a conversation on heroin deaths among white rural Americans by saying that they made a choice, or saying that those girls in Nigeria kidnapped by Boko Haram made a choice by going to school. All things happen as a result of an interaction between choice and chance. To make this conversation about individual choice is to make it content-free.
The content is in what we do in response to the choices we see. The labor movement was a response to exploitation in much of the world: what's the status of the labor movement in Nepal? Many countries have made efforts to diversify their economies when one fragile industry rules: what's the status of economic diversification in Nepal? How strong is the government when it comes to enforcing labor regulations? How are people taking advantage of the tourism industry to support other aspects of Nepali culture and the economy? What causes the fact that other jobs just aren't as remunerative? What about work opportunities for women, since the guides are all men? How much of the economic structure is bound up in how health care and education are delivered, since if those are all family-based then women don't have time to engage in the global workforce? How are connections with the outside world for marketing and shipping exportable goods or commodities? Is there information asymmetry that could be ameliorated to enable the Sherpa to make better economic decisions?
>The guy in the article brings up a conversation he had with some Sherpa in which the Sherpa says he is making the choice between risking his life and feeding his family.
So is your suggestion that we stop visiting to climb the mountain so the sherpa can no longer feed his family? You constructed the false dichotomy, so now I would like to see you argue your way out of it.
If you're talking about governance, I suspect the assassination of the King and royal family[1] and the ensuing civil war launched by rebel communists[2], who once in power acted in the same corrupt way as the government did prior[3], and are now getting pummelled in elections and leading to tensions within the country, all of these factors contributed to an inefficient, corrupt, and impotent government that cannot enact industry protections or strong domestic/foreign policy (getting blockaded, especially after the Kathmandu earthquake[4]). There are significant proportion of real estate and capital in Kathmandu uninhabited and unused because the buildings are no longer safe. The inflation from the supply crunch from the blockade and the earthquake makes foreign currency all the more valuable. If anything, the tourism trade that brings in foreign currency is more important than ever to ensure the Sherpa community and the rest of Nepal can survive and live.
Nepal could do with less, not more, interference in its affairs.
Dr Govind Pokharel, vice-chairman of Nepal's National Planning Commission, admits the system is weak and corrupt but says the huge salaries on offer in NGOs and the UN means they are causing a brain drain in Nepal's civil service. "A government guy gets $200 for a month, whereas you are paying $2,000 per month at an NGO or agency, it is damaging," he says.[5]
I hope I've answered most of your questions.
If you're interested in continuing this conversation, drop your email here and I'll email you. My girlfriend is Nepalese and at work I also work closely with a Nepalese colleague.
You're using them to give your argument authority and credence, and that's an incredibly disrespectful thing to do to people you know and care about. It's a flavor of this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument
You can read my other comments in this thread for why I think even if tourism & the climbing industry is good for Nepal right now, there are still ethical dilemmas. I also encourage you to reread kaitai's last paragraph about how this debate absolutely should not stop at an individual's choice. There's a lot that can be done, like shoring up other economies within Nepal so our citizens don't have to work in incredibly dangerous fields.
Finally, I hope you've talked to your friends about the situation for average Nepali. Villages are in positions where one bad hailstorm can cripple the village for a year, and force all the men to leave for the city or the Middle East to find work. Most villages don't receive the immediate benefits of tourism. Many are very remote, which adds a huge set of challenges - disaster response, medical aid, communication, etc. The Maoist insurgency was obviously a huge deal, as is what's going on in Madesh and Terai right now, but a lot of the other political shifts aren't felt as much, and frankly, the Nepalese government doesn't have the resources to do much. The help of NGOs and charities is vital to many villages.
>> You're using them to give your argument authority and credence
Yes, it gives my argument that we can have a fruitful conversation over email, more authority and credence.
You're being offensive accusing me of using the "Friend argument".
To insist that I've used that line for my comments I made prior to my invitation for an email conversation, ignoring the context, mindlessly linking to rationalwiki, to insinuate I'm disrespectful to my partner, and a close friend I've talked to every day for half a decade, is beyond insulting. You're using rationalwiki as a tool to label people you disagree with, to win arguments without thinking, to use as a weapon. Utter stupidity.
>> Finally, I hope you've talked to your friends about the situation for average Nepali. Villages are in positions where one bad hailstorm can cripple the village for a year, and force all the men to leave for the city or the Middle East to find work. Most villages don't receive the immediate benefits of tourism. Many are very remote, which adds a huge set of challenges - disaster response, medical aid, communication, etc.
Yes, I have.
>> There's a lot that can be done, like shoring up other economies within Nepal so our citizens don't have to work in incredibly dangerous fields.
>> The help of NGOs and charities is vital to many villages.
Laissez faire has historically proven to be the only means that can shore up economies. NGO's and charities will only weaken it, because you're buying up resources in the country, reducing access to it by businesses.
Is it moral for me to analyse your life of bad habits, of my own judgement, and plan a better life, also of my own judgement, for you?