But i dunno. Just ironic social services get all pissy when you leave your kids at home and they end up burning themselves with an iron or having some sort of accident and you get quizzed for it....or they miss a few weeks off school. But its OK to climb Mt Everest.
A blind person's climbed it. A 70 year-old's climbed it. A 15 year-old's climbed it. As long as his parents are going with and he has the experience, what's the problem?
be humble for you are made of earth; be noble for you are made of stars
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
In these types of discussions, I usually get in trouble for this, but maybe not this time....
It's up to the parents. They are the legal guardians of the child, it's their right to decide.
Sure. Why the hell not? Just more proof supporting Darwin's theory of evolution.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
The thing is, while all those activities carry some risk, and are definitely more dangerous at times than what the average kid his age is out doing, unlike climbing Mount Everest, none of them has a 10% death rate.
The kid has a 1 in 10 chance of dying on that mountain. When you take his age into consideration (and what his VO2 Max is at 13), its probably much greater than that. So really, I don't know if he is old enough to really appreciate the gravity of something like that. He is certainly not old enough to join the military, and most wars are safer than climbing Everest.
"You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)