John Ordover claims that, "Exploration is only done for a profit
motive."

What planet is Mr. Ordover from, anyway? I must hail from some other
universe! All my life, I've enjoyed exploration for exploration's sake.
To explore appeals to my deep sense of wonder; no financial profit is
necessary (even if it can be nice).

Perhaps Mr. Ordover is a troll; he certainly comes across like one. But
he is far from the only person to make such statements. If only. There
is indeed a tendency among many to pretend that only *profit* motivates
anyone to do anything.

Joseph Wang writes that "none of the early European explorers or the
governments that financed them were really interested in abstract
knowledge or for a sense of adventure. They were in it to get filthy
rich from the spice trade." Steve Stirling concurs: "Exploration for
its own sake was a later development -- after generations of
unbelievable success had taught Europeans that finding things out about
remote places was always a Very Good Thing."

So let me get this straight. Before modern Europeans decided that
exploration was a Very Good Thing, nobody ever explored for
exploration's sake? No one ever thought to wander through the woods out
of sheer wonder? No one ever went on a boat ride just to see what was
out there, and have fun while they were at it? No one ever explored a
cave, or a creek, or a mountain, or a jungle, out of their sense of
adventure? Please! That has got to be garbage. As a kid, I explored
everything -- and not for extra allowance money! There was no extra
profit to be made; I thrived on the thrill, the wonder, the adventure,
the knowledge to be gained. And I still thrive on it. The
profit-obsessed would have me believe that I'm the only human who has
ever existed to feel this way. (If they first admit that I exist at
all!) But that is laughable. Money can be a useful device, but not the
be-all and end-all of human existence. Profit is *not* the only motive
for exploration or anything else. Far from it.

Craig Neumeier claims that "Exploration for its own sake is quite rare
in history, and the Romans didn't do it." No Roman ever explored
without getting paid for it? No Roman child ever snuck outside after
bed to stalk the night for strange discoveries? No Roman centurion ever
found fulfillment or adventure in his expeditions, but cared only for
his paycheck? This is economic determinism at its worst.

Anytime a discussion comes up regarding space exploration, someone is
bound to ask, "What's the point? There's no economic justification that
I can see." Or something along those lines. It apparently never
occurred to such people that space is fun and fulfilling and
fascinating in its own right.

In 'Mission Worth It?', Stanley Kurtz writes,

"Space lovers, in contrast, are a hopeful lot. They seek to conquer
space for sheer glory's sake. And space-o-philes don't just crave
evidence of life; they intend the colonization of space to remake human
society. Space lovers even expect to save the world - by giving
humans a new home in case a stray asteroid, or ecological disaster,
threaten Earth. Dreams like this keep the space lovers going."

Notice that Mr. Kurtz *never* even mentions exploration for its own
wondrous sake. Apparently the thought just never came to his mind. It's
difficult for me to find common ground with people like Kurtz. We
almost seem to come from different species. Perhaps that's yet another
good reason for me to get off this planet and explore what's out there.


Catherine Hampton says it best: "It's as if an art lover had to explain
his love for Michangelo's David to someone who saw sculpture as nothing
but shaped rocks."

One poster to rasf writes, "Curiosity, like gravity, is a weak force -
it does its work slowly. But like gravity, it is a force which cannot
be denied."

I cannot deny my curiosity. Yet my curiosity is anything but weak. It
is powerful enough to rank right next to my need for food, water, and
life itself. Perhaps my drive to explore makes me rare. I am willing to
consider that possibility (though I seriously question it). But I
refuse to consider that people like me do not exist. That is simply
absurd on its face. Unfortunately, it is also an article of faith for
extreme materialists.

Paul Dietz writes that "Explorers are a tiny, abberant microminority of
any society."

Christopher Jones echoes that belief, albeit with a qualifier:
"Exploration is, indeed, a rather exceptional human behavior, but it is
nevertheless a human behavior. And one which is so ingrained in the
nature of humanity that it has been a constant, continuing, and quite
important part of the entirety of human history and pre-history."

But are explorers truly so rare among humans? I am certain that they
are not rare among children. Growing up, I rarely met a fellow child
who was *not* an explorer. Somehow I doubt that most adults simply
"grow out" of this urge to explore. Shawn Dawson puts it this way:

"It is true that most individuals have not explored, but that is not
because they lacked the urge. I believe that they have not explored
for other reasons. Among them, are 1) How do you support your family
while you explore. 2) Political restrictions (crossing national borders
can cause problems) 3) Similar to 1), but even if you don't have a
family, how do you even sustain yourself while exploring. Surely many,
many people would, if given the choice, rather explore (and perhaps
settle) some newly discovered island, or sail the seas in a boat than
push a pen at work. The reason we don't is not lack of desire, but one
of the above issues (or others). To call explorers a 'tiny, aberrant
microminority of any society' is a totally unfounded statement."

Based upon my observations in life, I am inclined to agree with Mr.
Dawson.

Are explorers truly rare among people? And if so, how rare are they?

It seems that lots of people are explorers. Even people who are bogged
down in the 'normal' life often explore vicariously (through RPGs, for
example).

Are some people simply more genetically inclined to explore than
others?

Why are some people so intent on denying humans' drive to explore?

ObWI: WI the belief that profit is the main motive throughout human
history never gains widespread currency (pardon the pun)? WI it were
far more fashionable to attribute human behavior chiefly to spiritual
beliefs, cultural orientations, or sexual habits, for a few examples?
Granted, this should put many major philosophies out of commission;
certainly, economic determinism would be a fringe phenomenon...