Edmund Hilary - Savior or Destroyer?

Annapurna South, Nepal

Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com

Edmund Hillary, the first to summit Mt. Everest and a life long advocate of Nepal's Sherpa people, is widely acclaimed for his compassion and humanitarian work. Today in Nepal his popularity remains undisputed, and he is credited for his efforts to bring schools and hospitals to some of the country's hardiest but poorest citizens. Yet these seemingly uncontroversial acts of goodwill can lead to social instability and destruction of fragile ecosystems.

Those living in the Third World survive in a delicate equilibrium between the demands made upon the environment and the its ability to sustain these needs. The situation is particularly acute in communities based high in the mountains where the growing season is short and there is little land available for agriculture. High birth rates coupled with equally high infant mortality and short life expectancies maintain the balance needed for these societies to survive under harsh conditions. Altering this fragile interplay between life and death can have devastating repercussions unless population control issues are considered in their entirety.

In 1950 Maurice Herzog climbed Nepal's Annapurna and became the first man to conquer a mountain higher than 8000 meters. He returned to France and wrote Annapurna, the most popular mountaineering book ever written which eventually sold 11 million copies. At that time the population of Nepal was 7 million. Today the population is 29 million crammed into a country the size of Arkansas but living in an arable area equivalent to New Hampshire. It is one of the poorest countries in the world with a per capita income of $100/month and an unemployment rate of 46% with 25% of the population living below the poverty line. Extensive deforestation and pollution abound due to the destruction of the natural balance between human population and the demands upon the land.

Most everyone who visits Nepal praises its people, who have the uncanny ability to make their guests feels welcome. However, under this exterior one has the feeling the country functions on a narrow reserve where the slightest perturbation could throw it into chaos. The government is totally dysfunctional, and there are simply not enough resources to support the ever increasing population which is flocking to congested urban areas.

Whether it is providing immunizations for children in Africa or hospital care for parturients in Nepal, there is a sense of purpose and moral gratification experienced by those who provide these humanitarian services. The efforts are widely acclaimed by the international community. But this is the “feel good” part of problem solving which is difficult to criticize. There remains a more somber aspect to these acts of charity and goodwill. Without comprehensive family planning programs and the introduction of methods to increase production of goods and services without destroying the environment, these efforts undermine the sustainability of the people they are intended to help. No doubt Edmund Hillary's intentions were noble, but programs meant to help poor countries must address the entire demographic problem from the outset, or within a few generations the act of goodwill will become a death sentence.