the drive to explore

wrote:

Humans do not have a drive to explore;

You know, you *really* need to qualify that statement. "*Some* humans
do not," maybe. Some humans *do*. Maybe even many humans do.

Meriwether Lewis certainly had a drive to explore. I have researched
historians who specialize in his era. They consistently point out that
Lewis was driven by a sense of wonder and adventure. Stephen Ambrose
covers this well in *Undaunted Courage*.

The adventurous drive to explore was never unique to Lewis either.
Lewis, by the way, was quite wealthy to begin with; he wasn't some poor
guy who just wanted to strike it rich. He sought adventure and
knowledge through exploration.

"Not all men were content with or pursued the plantation life, and like
Lewis, many sought adventure."

http://www.pbs.org/lewisandclark/inside/idx_cir.html

Paul Hermann, in *Conquest of Man*, writes that "[M]en like Marco
Polo...sought adventure for adventure's sake, because it represented
self-affirmation and self-enhancement."

Sure doesn't look like profit is everything, as you want us to believe.


By "exploration" I mean not merely searching around your local area
in
search of resources - everyone who has ever needed firewood or gone
hunting has done that. We're talking about an organized, extremely
expensive and risky mission involving a huge investment of resources,
not one person wandering around near their house.

Well, Lewis and Clark's expeditions were certainly organized, expensive
and risky. And they were motivated at least as much by wonder,
adventure, exploration etc. as profit. They were hardly unique in this
regard, hard as that will be for you to believe.

More later.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Consider the famous Meriwether Lewis. In his book *Undaunted Courage*,
Stephen Ambrose describes him thusly: "He had an endearing sense of
wonder and awe at the marvels of nature that made him the nearly
perfect man to be the first to describe the glories of the American
West."

Lewis was not a broke man looking to strike it rich. At age 18, he had
already inherited nearly 2,000 acres of land, 520 pounds in cash, and
24 slaves. Exploration was often tempting to adventurous plantation
owners who were *already* wealthy.

So why did he wait to get hired? Why aren't we talking about the famouse
Lewis Expedition of 1801 that was privately funded and done simply out of
curiousity, not by a governmental profit motive?

Private space developer Burt Rutan points out that "for decades
informed adults have taken treks to the top of Everest, even though
more than 10 percent of those who've reached the summit have died on
the mountain." How do you explain that kind of adventuring by *profit
motive*? Clearly, people like you and Clough are out of touch with
reality. There *is* a human need to explore.


Going to Everest is hardly exploring. We know what's there.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


Going to Everest is hardly exploring. We know what's there.

What was unknown was whether a human could survive the climb. That was
far from clear. The first successful climb was made without oxygen
tanks, by the way. Adapting to 30,000 msl is a non-trivial, nay a darn
near impossible task.

Bob Kolker

wrote in message
oups.com...

Pete Lynn wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Stephen Horgan wrote:
On 20 May 2005 04:16:06 -0700, wrote:

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

Sensible chap.

Try 'senseless'. Exploration is obviously not done
only for a profit motive.

Why has evolution imbued you with an instinct for
exploration if it does not profit by it?

I was referring to economic profit.

So was I.

Do you get it yet?

Pete.

Robert Kolker wrote:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


Going to Everest is hardly exploring. We know what's there.


What was unknown was whether a human could survive the climb. That was
far from clear. The first successful climb was made without oxygen
tanks, by the way. Adapting to 30,000 msl is a non-trivial, nay a darn
near impossible task.

Bob Kolker


OTOH, that fact is not exactly unknown now. For a mere $25K or
so anybody can sign up for an expedition to the top of Everest.
Blind, overweight, handicapped -- it can and has been done.
In fact one of the main problems with climbing Everest is
bringing the trash down. For a while the place was looking like
a garbage dump.

Brenda



--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Recent short fiction: PARADOX, Autumn 2003
http://home.nyc.rr.com/paradoxmag//index.html

Upcoming short fiction in FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html

lclough wrote:



OTOH, that fact is not exactly unknown now. For a mere $25K or so
anybody can sign up for an expedition to the top of Everest. Blind,
overweight, handicapped -- it can and has been done. In fact one of the
main problems with climbing Everest is bringing the trash down. For a
while the place was looking like a garbage dump.

Two points:

1 current crop of climbers have life-support equipment, including oxygen
tents and breathing apparatus.

2. I concur with you about the mess. I think the expeditions should be
required by the local government to pack their trash and bring it away
for proper disposal. It is a disgrace. Mt. Everest is looking more like
a used oxygen tank display than a Challenge. Eventually the weight of
all those oxygen tanks will cause the mountain to collapse.

Bob Kolker

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Pete Lynn wrote:

Try 'senseless'. Exploration is obviously not done
only for a profit motive.


Why has evolution imbued you with an instinct for
exploration if it does not profit by it?

Because if you can convince yourself that evolution
demands it, you don't actually have to provide a real
justification.

Indeed. Our passions informing our reason informing our passions,
unfortunately the vulgar tend to skip that pesky last step.

For his next lesson, 'alr' should explain why something
that is (let's assume) driven by someone's biology
should therefore be considered desirable, or
something that should receive general support. As an
example, he should consider the case of biologically
based drives to commit rape or pedophilia.

Without justifying it on the basis of it being a by product of a more
substantial mechanism?

I do have a biological theory about people who are
so fired up about getting off planet. They tend to
be reproductively unsuccessful young males. The urge
dies away as they get older or have children.

While married, I am in that category. Having said that, my conversion,
around ten years back, was purely and comprehensively philosophical,
which surprised me somewhat. I have since grown it into an obsession,
somewhat intentionally - from reason to passion. Passion is
unfortunately necessary if you need to really push something.

Pete.

wrote:



Do you think the Apollo missions were motivated *solely* by
nationalism, to the exclusion of the sense of wonder, exploration,
fascination with the unknown, etc.?




The -money was invested- solely for other reasons. Remember
Kennedy's speech? It was in reply to the Russians' space
achievements to date. If the Russians had spent their money on
vodka and suntan lotion in the 50s the United States would not
have put one thin dime into NASA.

And on this one we have some historical proof. Consider the
present day: the Chinese are thinking about a moon shot. They
announced it. Americans continue debating the guilt of Michael
Jackson. Why are we not stoking up a major space effort in
reply, as we did in the 60s? It is because space is no longer
an arena of competition. Competition is now dirtside, in
textile exports, automobiles and software.

I say again: offer one example of major national assets
invested in exploration, that do not involve political,
religious, or monetary gain. I offered one: Alexander, which is
dubious simply because of the thinness of the historical record.

(And -is- it exploration, when you are going to a place where
there are millions of people? I remember when a Native American
delegation flew to Rome, and immediately unfurled a flag at the
airport to claim Italy for the Great Manitou. Let us go and
explore Chicago!)


Brenda


--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Recent short fiction: PARADOX, Autumn 2003
http://home.nyc.rr.com/paradoxmag//index.html

Upcoming short fiction in FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html

"Robert Kolker" wrote in message
...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


Going to Everest is hardly exploring. We know what's there.

What was unknown was whether a human could survive the climb. That was
far from clear. The first successful climb was made without oxygen
tanks, by the way. Adapting to 30,000 msl is a non-trivial, nay a darn
near impossible task.

True, but that's not what drives people TODAY and what is done today on
Everest is hardly exploring.


Bob Kolker

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

True, but that's not what drives people TODAY and what is done today on
Everest is hardly exploring.

So true. It is a bunch of bored rich folk going on Saffari.

Bob Kolker