• Patches@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I too, believe the best way to control a natural resource is to only allow the rich to use it. For they are truly better people. Always known for their consideration.

      • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        An upper middle class person can afford an Everest climb as a once in a lifetime trip. It isn’t an exclusive millionaire class trip.

        • yuriy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          10 months ago

          “Once in a lifetime” isn’t affordable, that’s someone sacrificing a lot to vacation outside of their socioeconomic class.

          • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            10 months ago

            An “economy” climb is $60k. That is 10 years of saving $6k per year for a once in a lifetime vacation. That is totally achievable for someone making $100k a year that doesn’t let income creep put them in a stupid financial situation.

            You have more of a point if that same person making $100k a year spends $120k on a “premium” climb, but that same person would let income creep make that trip less reasonably affordable.

            • overcast5348@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              How poor are the people here that you’re getting downvoted and even got a “shut up” for this comment? It’s really not a stretch to call a $60k expense a “once in a lifetime” expense.

              How many people drive around in 80k vehicles that they “upgrade” every few years? How many people spend absolutely ridiculous amounts of money on designer brands, perfumes, watches, and shit? Sure, 60k is a lot of money for most people, but there’s a large number of people (at least in the western countries, in absolute numbers, not %) that could easily afford to spend 60k on something every 5-10 years if it fancies them, and an even larger number of people who could afford to spend 60k on something once in a lifetime.

              • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Those people with $80k cars tend to lease, which can have tax advantages, but you are still paying $1k a month to rent a car that you put 20-30% down on.

                That touches on that income creep issue as people increase their lifestyle expenses along with income and don’t understand how they are living paycheck to paycheck with no savings, retirement, investments, and can’t afford to have your midlife crisis on the world’s tallest peak.

                Buy a Honda, climb the mountain.

    • Psythik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Yeah seriously, just limit the amount of people who can climb.

      I personally believe that anyone should be allowed to go on a suicide mission should they chose to, whether they be rich or poor.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        How? Unless you live in Napal, it’s not cheap to get to. It also takes at least some amount of planning and skill. Far from the hardest climb out there, but you can’t be an idiot about it.

        The remoteness alone is already limiting who can go there. El Capitan is less remote, but is a legendarily difficult climb, and that may get around the same number of people per year.