I feel like certain extreme adventures should involve waiving your right to rescue. Why should four plus competent, trained, healthy people have to risk their lives to save someone who is most likely incompetent, untrained, and unhealthy - but merely buying their way into extreme conditions?

If I decided I want to make a trek across the Sahara using nothing but authentic 1000 B.C equipment, why should anyone have to endanger themselves to save me? If I want an extreme outdoors adventure, isn't foregoing rescue really adding to the appeal?

But the worst thing is that those who survive will just have the ultimate accolade, in their minds. Of course out of all the cool places on Earth to go, dumbass shallow LinkedIn-posting, Medium-blogging C-suite "grind" types have to pick the place that elevates them above all the other peons (aided of course, by some peons they underpaid to take them there). And when their own hubris endangers them, rather than accept their fate, they demand yet more peons endanger themselves to rescue them. It's like a microcosm of the whole world. Fuck these people. You sign up to summit Mount Everest - you're signing up to maybe die. Isn't that what you wanted? Real risk? Real adventure? Or did you just want an appearance of it that you could repost to others in your life, like everything else? Fuck