I think that in cases like this the line between heroism and foolishness is very thin (and also subjective). Ok, these guys can probably be considered heroes. But how about the three Swedes that set out to reach the North Pole in a balloon that one of them hoped would be able to not only reach the Pole, but carry them past it to an inhabited place (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9e%27s_Arctic_balloon... - it later turned out that the balloon failed after only four days, followed by several grueling months of trying to trek back to civilization using the completely inadequate equipment that the balloon was able to carry, only to die, probably by being eaten by polar bears, on an uninhabited polar island)? Or that more recent guy who tried to dive to the Titanic using a largely untested submersible, which eventually killed himself and his four paying passengers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_submersible_implosion)?

For those of you who have decided to down vote, the person I'm replying to edited their post silently. It previously did not contain the acronym "IBD" but rather "IBS"

An article posted here a few days ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40611058) wasn't so charitable. The Wikipedia article on the expedition also hints that sending these two specific people to climb Mt. Everest was pretty irresponsible:

> The question of which mountaineers would comprise the climbing party was no easy one. As a consequence of World War I, there was a lack of a whole generation of strong young men. George Mallory was again part of the mission, along with Howard Somervell, Edward "Teddy" Norton and Geoffrey Bruce. George Ingle Finch, who had gained the record height in 1922, was proposed as a member but eventually was not included. The committee's reasons included that he was divorced and that he had accepted money for lectures. The influential Secretary of the committee, Arthur Hinks, made it clear that for an Australian to be first on Everest was not acceptable; the British wanted the climb to be an example of British spirit to lift morale. Mallory refused to climb again without Finch, but changed his mind after being personally persuaded by the British royal family at Hinks's request. [...] Andrew "Sandy" Irvine, an engineering student whom Odell knew from an expedition to Spitsbergen, was a so-called "experiment" for the team and a test for "young blood" on the slopes of Mount Everest.

So Irvine was very inexperienced, and Mallory's absent-mindedness also didn't bide well for their chances of coming back alive. However, the article also directly contradicts the Wikipedia page (Wikipedia states that Mallory initially refused to go without Finch, while the article writes that "he would not think of joining the new expedition if Finch was going" - so make of it what you will...

  As a consequence of World War I, there was a lack of a whole generation of strong young men.

  The British wanted the climb to be an example of British spirit to lift morale.

I don't actually agree. I just wanted to see how you'd respond.

To be fair, I'm the only who we know for certain interpreted your comment in the way I did, and I vouched/unflagged it. Who knows why anyone else would flag it?