Ever hear of *tourism*, geniuses? (Speaking of the "drive to explore")

Bill Harris wrote:

Anyone with even basic knowledge of psychological research or tourism
industry would know otherwise.

Exactly my point. Assertion is not argumentation.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
There is another world, which is not of men.
-- Li Bai

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:31:01 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Wayne Throop) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Or, "strong drive". How strong is "strong"? How significant? What
I've seen demonstrated is that, from an early age, there is a drive to
explore whenever it is convenient. Whenever the effort goes up, this
"strong drive to explore" tends to evaporate. So the issue becomes,
just how convenient is this space travel stuff anyways, and what has it
done for me lately.

Which is why everybody pooh-poohed introducing tourism as an example.
Tourism is practically the paradigm of "when it's convenient", whereas
space travel in the near future is not convenient, not even a little.

Tourism is not exploration. I'd like to visit LEO, but I've no
interest in "exploring" it.

wrote:

They were wrong in that as well. Psychological research has repeatedly
found that in healthy humans, there is a strong drive to explore new
environments evident from a very early age. The popularity of the
tourism industry (at least as big as sex industry) caters to this
fundamental, widespread drive.

That's simply not true - throughout history, the vast majority of
people have died within 20 miles of where they were born - a stat that
has grown only to 50 miles in our easy-travel culture.

Even if this were true (you never cite a source to back it up), it does
not back up your argument. Of course, it's a ridiculous statistic with
no chance of being true. For one thing, many societies have been
essentially nomadic, pretty much always on the move, over many miles
year after year. By definition, many nomads throughout history could
hardly have died anywhere near their place of birth. Moreover,
throughout history, even in societies classified as non-nomadic, war
and migrations and expulsions have been far too common for your claim
to be true. So as usual, your claims are nonsense, and backed up by
phony stats with no basis in reality.

However, your claim would be irrelevant even if it had the slightest
truth to it. One could explore nearly a lifetime's worth and still
return home and die near his or her place of birth. That's exactly what
happened with some of the greatest explorers in history.

Being a tourist implies being guided and pampered somewhere luxurious
and safe and entertaining, for a sharply limited time.

All tourism, risky or not, is about seeing and experiencing places away
from home (i.e., exploring).

Oddly enough, your implication doesn't appear in the dictionary
definition. Tourism "implies" nothing like you claim it does. Many
tourism trips are in fact quite risky. Even simple camping out doesn't
tend to be that luxurious, more often quite the opposite.

And as mentioned earlier in the thread, a considerable number of
military folks enjoy their careers in part for the adventure along with
the opportunities to see and experience new places, i.e., to explore.
It is also not uncommon for veterans to have enjoyed combat. Again, as
Charley Reese notes:

'Furthermore, war is the ultimate sport. It is a contest in which the
stakes are life or death. It is the ultimate high for adrenaline
junkies. Even Robert E. Lee, who really was a Christian knight,
remarked, "It is well that war is so terrible else we would grow too
fond of it." I know several men, combat veterans, who do love war. They
miss it. They love to reminisce about it. Nothing that peace has to
offer can match war's excitement. A man is never more alive than when
he is face-to-face with death.'

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese163.html

So there are vets who clearly enjoyed combat, and they're easy to find.
Why wouldn't there be many people who enjoy exploring (or would enjoy
it given the opportunity)? If anything, combat conditions tend to be
much *less* safe, luxurious, or pampered than those of peaceful
exploration. I think you are going way too far in assuming that almost
the whole human race is made up of couch potatoes.

And even couch potatoes take big risks. Many thousands get maimed or
killed every year, just driving to and from work, etc. Drugs and
alcohol and tobacco are risky, but millions upon millions indulge.
There are countless other examples. People are complicated, far more
complex than you seem to know. Humans are a species of extremes. In
fact, many of our greatest feats result from the clashing of human
extremes. On one hand, people like safety, but on the other, they also
love to break that mold and take risks. They enjoy luxury, but they
also enjoy getting away from it. They are soothed by peace, as with
sleep, but they also need to be in conflict, in strife, in war, where
they can be fully alive and awake. They find charm in "home, sweet
home," but also in new and unfamiliar places.

Being an
explorer inherently implies going somewhere unknown, unguided, and
uncomfortable for an unknown amount of time.

More "implications" that are not part of the real definition.
Throughout history, many famous explorers had some knowledge about
where they were going, often quite considerable. They also commonly
sought and received guidance. For example, most Europeans who explored
America and Africa made use of native guides. Your argument is
bankrupt, so your only recourse is to distort words to mean things they
need not.

The idea that many people
want to do this is silly.

To the contrary, your close-minded belief that people inherently DO NOT
is silly.

For one thing, many societies have been
essentially nomadic,

Following the game around in circles doesn't get you very far from
where you are born - which is what nomadic tribes did.

For example, most Europeans who explored
America and Africa made use of native guides.

Where exactly are you going to find native guides in the solar system
other than us?

Exploration and tourism are NOT the same things. But either way, why
go into space, where we've already explored and found nothing worth
going to get? Where the chances of coming back are iffy at best
compared to a trip to Florida? Where the accomodations suck? You're
going to have to come up with a much better reason for people to go
than "for the heck of it."

Sure, there are some people who want to go. Not enough to maintain an
industry at these prices. And with nothing to economically exploit,
and in fact an inability to live off the land, space is just a big
nothing.

Some definitions:

tour·ism n.
The practice of traveling for pleasure.

Perhaps for some pleasure involves discomfort and risking their lives,
but not many.

exploration

to travel for the purpose of discovery

How can you travel for the purpose of discovery if a probe has already
been there and done all the discovering?

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 7 Feb 2006 01:26:32 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Bill Harris"
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:


: Well, at least we agree that such people exist.

: No one ever disputed that such people exist, you moron.

You really like the word "moron", don't you Rand? Why not look up
"imbecile" and "idiot"? That way, you'll realize (well maybe) that when
you claim someone is a moron, you're actually acknowledging that they are
smarter than you are.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:28:42 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : Well, at least we agree that such people exist.
:
: : No one ever disputed that such people exist, you moron.
:
: You really like the word "moron", don't you Rand?

: Not really. I actually use it relatively rarely, and tend to reserve
: it for very special people. But for them (and you're one of them), I
: abuse it.

Which means that if you do abuse it, you shouldn't use it...

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:28:42 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Well, at least we agree that such people exist.

: No one ever disputed that such people exist, you moron.

You really like the word "moron", don't you Rand?

Not really. I actually use it relatively rarely, and tend to reserve
it for very special people. But for them (and you're one of them), I
abuse it.