I suppose there are two kinds of adventure. Those for personal accomplishment, and those out of necessity, or those that have real world ramifications of significance beyond yourself. I am referring to this type.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
I suppose there are two kinds of adventure. Those for personal accomplishment, and those out of necessity, or those that have real world ramifications of significance beyond yourself. I am referring to this type.
Go get a job on a trans-atlantic barge. Become the next Hassan Fathy, only work in more contested tribal areas/push the envelope a tad harder. Peace Corpse. Find Jesus and then go preach about it to South Americans. Lose Jesus and then go try to exploit South Americans. Invent a car that can run on water and try to stay one step ahead of Big Oil's assassin. Start a life of crime to counter John Dillinger's foiling the FBI at every turn.
Somehow getting scurvy and having my limbs fall off seem more excting when they're not happening to me.
Anyway is there a rule that says you ave to travel halfway across the world for excitement? Most people waste the opportunities that are presented to them everyday out of laziness. there's always risks to take and new things to try it just requires getting off your ass once in a while.
How would joining the military or being something like a UN Peacekeeper not qualify?
I kinda mentioned it earlier, but it used to be armies were used to conquer glorious empires and so on. Nowadays they're used for peacekeeping and maintaining the status quo, which to me doesn't seem as adventurous. And of course it has to be that way because armies are so destructive now, I'm not saying wars should happen more often.
Sure, it's more adventurous than living on some Kentucky farm, but it just doesn't seem the same to me.
I find that, particularly in a mall or high street environment, if you simply run fast, like at full pelt to your destination, even if only for a short burst you garner everyones attention. Noone fucking runs anywhere anymore, and it is a lot of fun even if your life is hugely mundane.
I remember this brilliant Carlsberg or Guinness adver on TV where two guys race home from work to their flat, quite literally climbing over busses and under bridges in the rain just to get the one comfy chair for the footy. I do that kinda shit often, its so good.
How would joining the military or being something like a UN Peacekeeper not qualify?
I kinda mentioned it earlier, but it used to be armies were used to conquer glorious empires and so on. Nowadays they're used for peacekeeping and maintaining the status quo, which to me doesn't seem as adventurous. And of course it has to be that way because armies are so destructive now, I'm not saying wars should happen more often.
Sure, it's more adventurous than living on some Kentucky farm, but it just doesn't seem the same to me.
Was the overarching goal of the war really that impactful upon the soldiers in the field? No plunder no glory doesn't hold true for WWII and I'd even say the same for our more needless wars like 'nam.
I'm not denying Peace Corps had an impact. I respect what they do, I really do.
It's just that Columbus discovering America changed the course of history. Peace Corps humanitarian missions are not as profound. Well, maybe "profound" is not the word I'm looking for here, but you know what I mean. If you went to a parallel universe without Peace Corps, I doubt it would be much different than the current one. Maybe harsher, with more people suffering, etc. But in such a universe, if America hasn't been discovered, it would be tremendously different.
meh, if you want to make a giant contribution to the world you go into politics or science and take a shot at getting famous. An indivual can still change the world.
not really adventurious though. There still is a lot of room for it in various sports or just touring the world. There's still loads of danger and excitement out there for people who want it. You can still lead an advernturious life, IIRC.
I'm not denying Peace Corps had an impact. I respect what they do, I really do.
It's just that Columbus discovering America changed the course of history. Peace Corps humanitarian missions are not as profound. Well, maybe "profound" is not the word I'm looking for here, but you know what I mean. If you went to a parallel universe without Peace Corps, I doubt it would be much different than the current one. Maybe harsher, with more people suffering, etc. But in such a universe, if America hasn't been discovered, it would be tremendously different.
Am I making sense? I'm tired.
edit: harsher, not less harsh
You are, I just don't consider scale to be so important in terms of meeting his 'real world ramifications of significance beyond yourself.' That anything short of discovering Atlantis wouldn't apply. It's a wierd take on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Columbus' discovery was more important than anything you can do now therefore nothing you do now can be considered important.
Plus I consider adventure to encompass more than just earth shattering events. I would say that Ibn Batuda was quite adventerous and you can have a similiar life as a modern day trader.
Personally, I think anything a person does that is different from what they do in daily life is an adventure.
For example, I consider going clubbing/bar-hopping an adventure, so when people ask me "are you adventurous" I say yes.
moniker: yes, I agree that his definition of adventure is too specific. I don't agree with it. I'm just trying to explain what he means, because he can't, apparently. :P
So would you call the astronauts of the early space program adventurers?
Definitely. But the last manned lunar landing was in 1972. I believe NASA is now preparing for missions to mars, and that is a prospect. I think it was Stephen Hawking who said man must expand into space to survive, and I agree. So in my opinion that is a noble cause and a good point.
This is the sort of adventure I am referring to, sorry that was not made clear.
Clubbing can be considered adventurous by definition, but it is not the adventure I am talking about.
So would you call the astronauts of the early space program adventurers?
Definitely. But the last manned lunar landing was in 1972. I believe NASA is now preparing for missions to mars, and that is a prospect. I think it was Stephen Hawking who said man must expand into space to survive, and I agree. So in my opinion that is a noble cause and a good point.
This is the sort of adventure I am referring to, sorry that was not made clear.
Clubbing can be considered adventurous by definition, but it is not the adventure I am talking about.
But that's not adventure, it's discovery. Would you call the guy sitting behind a computer that discovered evidence of the existence of dark matter with the Hubble an adventurer?
So would you call the astronauts of the early space program adventurers?
Definitely. But the last manned lunar landing was in 1972. I believe NASA is now preparing for missions to mars, and that is a prospect. I think it was Stephen Hawking who said man must expand into space to survive, and I agree. So in my opinion that is a noble cause and a good point.
This is the sort of adventure I am referring to, sorry that was not made clear.
Clubbing can be considered adventurous by definition, but it is not the adventure I am talking about.
But that's not adventure, it's discovery. Would you call the guy sitting behind a computer that discovered evidence of the existence of dark matter with the Hubble an adventurer?
No I wouldn't. Adventure can lead to discovery. Back to the clubbing example. There's (hopefully) no danger in that, although some may consider it adventurous because it's outside of their comfort zone. I'm not sure a scientist in a controlled lab is outside of their comfort zone or partaking in any danger.
It's certainly not the kind of high adventure I'm talking about, where your life may be at stake.
No I wouldn't. Adventure can lead to discovery. Back to the clubbing example. There's (hopefully) no danger in that, although some may consider it adventurous because it's outside of their comfort zone. I'm not sure a scientist in a controlled lab is outside of their comfort zone or partaking in any danger.
It's certainly not the kind of high adventure I'm talking about, where your life may be at stake.
If adventure can lead to discovery then discovery is not a pre-requisite for your 'high adventure.' Correct?
If adventure can lead to discovery then discovery is not a pre-requisite for your 'high adventure.' Correct?
Right. Take the Crusades. While this is probably a poor example as it has negative connotations (and rightfully so). Regardless, the crusaders believed their cause was righteous. They were not discovering anything new, although they had an impact on the world.
If adventure can lead to discovery then discovery is not a pre-requisite for your 'high adventure.' Correct?
Right. Take the Crusades. While this is probably a poor example as it has negative connotations (and rightfully so). Regardless, the crusaders believed their cause was righteous. They were not discovering anything new, although they had an impact on the world.
Then modern day military men and women would/could be leading an adventerous life as well. See also, all the other professions and shit that've been posted in the thread up until now.
Honestly, I think the so called "adventurous past" that everyone keeps fantasizing about never happened the way that they think it did. Much like the myth of the cowboy, exploring new lands is being really overplayed and is hardly heroic. It was dirty and uncomfortable to live in those conditions, and quite frankly, I doubt that they enjoyed it as much as you think they did. Also most of these so called "explorers" just did it for the money and were more concerned with finding gold then charting new areas. Whats so great about what they did anyways? All they really did was sail around, wonder through the woods, struggle to find food and shelter, then die of various diseases. Well that and subjugate indigenous peoples.
Then modern day military men and women would/could be leading an adventerous life as well. See also, all the other professions and shit that've been posted in the thread up until now.
Well I think Scooter said how I feel about that best.
Nowadays they're used for peacekeeping and maintaining the status quo
Most wars in the last few decades have not had very profound effects on the course of human history as a whole. Most have been small regional conflicts. Wikipedia puts this in good words.
With the advent of nuclear weapons, the concept of full-scale war carries the prospect of global annihilation, and as such conflicts since WWII have by definition have been "low intensity" conflicts, typically in the form of proxy wars fought within local regional confines, using what are now referred to as "conventional weapons," typically combined with the use of asymetrical warfare tactics ("terrorism") and applied use of intelligence.
In terms of war involving first world nations, this involves using usually overwhelming force to eliminate a rogue element. It's more like "upkeep" instead of something changing the course of history if that makes sense.
In terms of war involving first world nations, this involves using usually overwhelming force to eliminate a rogue element. It's more like "upkeep" instead of something changing the course of history if that makes sense.
That goes back to the post hoc ergo proptor hoc thing, though. You're devaluing current individual actions by taking into account the current perceived historical context (who knows what tales will be told of the American Empire's Conquest of Durka Durkastan in 3025) while elevating past individual actions by applying the past historical context. You can say that a war is just or unjust but that has no impact on the life of the soldier while they're serving. Hamburger Hill can compare to some beachheads in the Pacific or the assault on Constantinople regardless of our take on 'nam or WWII or the Ottoman's conquest.
Honestly, I think the so called "adventurous past" that everyone keeps fantasizing about never happened the way that they think it did. Much like the myth of the cowboy, exploring new lands is being really overplayed and is hardly heroic. It was dirty and uncomfortable to live in those conditions, and quite frankly, I doubt that they enjoyed it as much as you think they did. Also most of these so called "explorers" just did it for the money and were more concerned with finding gold then charting new areas. Whats so great about what they did anyways? All they really did was sail around, wonder through the woods, struggle to find food and shelter, then die of various diseases. Well that and subjugate indigenous peoples.
The thing is, I used to think like that, and it's probably partially true. It's obvious we over romanticise the past, mainly because we only know about it from old stories and the occasional BBC miniseries. But you can't read about the lives of dudes like James Brooke, Alexander Gardner and Henry Morton Stanley and not think that there was a lot of fun to be had back then. I can't discover the source of the nile, or become a pirate hunting rajah or travel India seeking revenge for my murdered family with a mercenary army at my back.
I mean, there are probably other adventures left to be had, but we won't find out about them for years. At least until they're long gone and the BBC is making a miniseries about them.
Man, I hope space colonization starts early enough in my lifetime that I could join in. That would totally rock. Anyway, we still have Antarctica. Yeah, we basically know all of its geographic features and environment but its like... remote and stuff. [spoiler:2bbb987d99] I still hold out hope for the discovery of a massive and cyclopian city of incredible age, encrusted with ice and echoing with distant calls of "Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!"[/spoiler:2bbb987d99]
In one sense, no, it's not possible. Things are mostly all already done.
But, not done by you. Therefore, living an "adventurous" lifestyle is certainly attainable. I also reckon that if you haven't travelled very much in your life you don't get to see the full range of possibilities for your own life. If you never leave your country (let's say Canada, where I'm from), your range of experience if much smaller. I have a friend that has been a river raft guide for over a decade, and has done that on every continent in the world. Is that enough adventure for you? It would be for me. He's now settling down in one of the most beautiful places in the world, in my opinion. Good for him!
Where did he start off, though? London. Do you think he was exposed to any of that stuff while sitting at his desk in some office? Nope. He did once have a job like that but ditched it to pursue his dream. I've done the same, but am about 15 years younger than him.
Life is as much of an adventure as you make of it. I suggest getting on a plane to Christchurch, taking a townbus as far as you can to the burbs along the coast, and just start walking. Take a wind breaker, a sweater, lots of water and granola bars.
Or, you could try hitchhiking to Vancouver Island. Or just go to Poland and drive around Krakow. Alternatively, go to Instanbul/Constantinople and take in the history and culture there. Go to Cuba or some other beachy country for a week on your own (all inclusive though!). Whatever your favourite hobby/sport is, find out where a Mecca for that is, and then GO THERE and just do it for a half year or maybe ten years. Who knows? Just do it. Yeah, Nike. But you know, that's why their marketing guys get paid alot of money. Just do it. It makes sense.
If you sit in front of your TV all the time, life doesn't seem very adventurous at all. I don't watch much tv anymore except BSG, and I don't miss it at all.
Life doesn't live itself.
strakha_7 on
Want a signature? Find a post by ElJeffe and quote a random sentence!
I recently visited Wyoming. Met a man there on a bicycle. said he had been riding for about 3 months, started in Nome, Alaska. said he planned to hit the southern tip of south america by 2010. That, my friends is adventure. Chances are good that it will have little worldwide signifigance, but to him, and the people he meets, and those he travels with, it is a life changing event. I have traveled around the world, and been shot at by some very unpleasant people. My life is changed because of it. The world, not so much. Adventure is a personal thing, something you take as a challenge, to test your mettle as a man. To claim it is a "hobby" for bored rich thrillseekers is more than a little bit naive, imo.
I can't believe you don't think there is any adventure left. Just because a territory has been charted doesn't mean there's no adventure to it. There are hundreds of dangerous mountains being scaled all of the time, and many people die during these expeditions. Is that not adventurous enough for you? Try rock climbing. There are millions and millions of scaleable rocks right here in the US, ranging anywhere from 10 feet to 5,000 feet. Some of these rocks are located in remote places, and simply being there is an adventure in and of itself.
What about backpacking? Sure, you're not always in the wilderness, but it's quite the adventure. Running? There's an annual event in Greece where thousands of people run up then back down Mt. Olympus. Isn't that an adventure? Hell, just traveling is an adventure. Going to places you've never been before, seeing all of the amazing landmarks...
In short: an adventure is what you make of it. Almost anything can be an adventure if you want it to be.
Every day of my life is amazing! I have a special calendar that I use exclusively for keeping track of a new and amazing thing I do every day. I don't always do crazy stuff, I mean some of it is as simple as "walked around campus barefoot," but I make sure to always do something new everyday.
Maybe my threshold for what constitutes an adventurous, amazing experience is lower than most people's, but I do have my fair share of really exciting ones also. Honestly, I think as long as you have a bicycle or even a car, and forsake actual directions, you can have limitless adventure.
In high school, I did all my travel by bicycle and a pocket map I got at a gas station that had like, three highways on it and no streets otherwise-- but it told me where towns were in relation to each other, and the adventure was finding where I was going regardless.
I'm waiting for someone to create a real life Sealab 2021. It would also be kickass to hunt for Jaguar Sharks.
krapst78 on
Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya! You killed my father prepare to die!
Looking for a Hardcore Fantasy Extraction Shooter? - Dark and Darker
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
edited November 2006
The 'lack of adventuer' really only seems to exist if you're going by the OP's rather fairy tale-esque defintion of what 'adventure' is. You want an adventure? Put on some hiking boots and a back pack in New York, and hike your way out to Nome, Alaska. It's not exactly uncharted wilderness, but in some places you'll probably be the first human foot to step there in centuries, and you'll be plenty far from ambulances, fast food, and first aid. You get mauled by a bear and break your leg, you're gonna die out there. How's that for adventure?
There was recently that guy (or was it a group? I don't recall the details) that took a raft right down the nile to the source, that's pretty adventurous. Or the stuff Micheal Palin has been doing for his travel documentaries, the Sahara one was damn adventurous.
And you could always take a job on a cargo ship that goes through the Malacca Strait, one of the most dangerous shipping routes in the world. Dangerous because of the enormous numbers of Pirates, fucking Pirates! Real ones, that will kill you!
if you want to be adventerous you must put yourself in danger, you must kill or enslave a people, and ideally it should never have been done before
Keeping peace? that's apparantly weak, because killing people (especially if they are innocent and you are just ignorant) is adventurous, peace keepers are wusses.
So if you go over to afghanistan chasing osama and kill whoever has an AK-47 because you thnk they are terorirsts, is that advernture? I bet it would be wouldn't it, that sort of like the crusades.
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
I know a girl that is seriously considering to be a war reporter. I have yet to ask her exact motivations, but the ball is still kind of out for me regarding it insane or awesome. I'm all for better reporting in warlike situations, but putting your own ass on the line for it makes it a wholly different question.
Now, more than ever before (try saying that without sounding like the voice-over guy), living a life of adventure is easier than ever. It's just that not doing so is also easier than ever.
We can choose to travel (hitchhike) almost anywhere we want, at any speed we want. We can choose how much to know about a given place or sitation, choose how much 'backup' (money, tickets, creditcards) to have, and make the adventure as risky, unpredictable, fun as we want. We can go couchsurfing and meet new people on our travels, while also having a place to stay. Or we can let people couchsurf at our own place, basically being passive-adventurous. We have the knowledge, luxury, and maybe a certain enlightenment(?) to understand other cultures, and people to some degree, learn the language and in some ways become more part of the places we go than ever before. Adventurous life is easier than ever!
On the other hand, we could just watch tv, surf the internet, and read books to satisfy our craving for the adventurous, the unknown. We have so much to do that we can live our whole lives doing essentially the same thing, while still feeling 'happy'. It's easier than ever to interact only with like-minded people through message-boards, clubs and sports activities. We don't really have big catastrophes, crusades, wars (at the moment), famines or plagues to force us into 'adventure'. Actually stepping out and being adventurous might be harder than ever, for us westerners.
In the end, I think the essential difference is choice. We have to make much more conscious choices to be adventurous or not. We're much more in control of our world than we used to be, for better and worse.
Posts
Go get a job on a trans-atlantic barge. Become the next Hassan Fathy, only work in more contested tribal areas/push the envelope a tad harder. Peace Corpse. Find Jesus and then go preach about it to South Americans. Lose Jesus and then go try to exploit South Americans. Invent a car that can run on water and try to stay one step ahead of Big Oil's assassin. Start a life of crime to counter John Dillinger's foiling the FBI at every turn.
How would joining the military or being something like a UN Peacekeeper not qualify?
Are you trying to say that Hassan Fathy or the Peace Corpse didn't have real-world ramifications? Because I'd have to disagree rather strongly there.
Anyway is there a rule that says you ave to travel halfway across the world for excitement? Most people waste the opportunities that are presented to them everyday out of laziness. there's always risks to take and new things to try it just requires getting off your ass once in a while.
And I think that discovering a new continent has far stronger and more fundamental ramifications than Peace Corps.
I kinda mentioned it earlier, but it used to be armies were used to conquer glorious empires and so on. Nowadays they're used for peacekeeping and maintaining the status quo, which to me doesn't seem as adventurous. And of course it has to be that way because armies are so destructive now, I'm not saying wars should happen more often.
Sure, it's more adventurous than living on some Kentucky farm, but it just doesn't seem the same to me.
You mean parkour? That shit is fun as hell.
That wouldn't debase the impact that the Peace Corps had, though. It's like saying that Queen is obviously a bad band because Zep rocked harder.
Was the overarching goal of the war really that impactful upon the soldiers in the field? No plunder no glory doesn't hold true for WWII and I'd even say the same for our more needless wars like 'nam.
It's just that Columbus discovering America changed the course of history. Peace Corps humanitarian missions are not as profound. Well, maybe "profound" is not the word I'm looking for here, but you know what I mean. If you went to a parallel universe without Peace Corps, I doubt it would be much different than the current one. Maybe harsher, with more people suffering, etc. But in such a universe, if America hasn't been discovered, it would be tremendously different.
Am I making sense? I'm tired.
edit: harsher, not less harsh
not really adventurious though. There still is a lot of room for it in various sports or just touring the world. There's still loads of danger and excitement out there for people who want it. You can still lead an advernturious life, IIRC.
You are, I just don't consider scale to be so important in terms of meeting his 'real world ramifications of significance beyond yourself.' That anything short of discovering Atlantis wouldn't apply. It's a wierd take on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Columbus' discovery was more important than anything you can do now therefore nothing you do now can be considered important.
Plus I consider adventure to encompass more than just earth shattering events. I would say that Ibn Batuda was quite adventerous and you can have a similiar life as a modern day trader.
Personally, I think anything a person does that is different from what they do in daily life is an adventure.
For example, I consider going clubbing/bar-hopping an adventure, so when people ask me "are you adventurous" I say yes.
moniker: yes, I agree that his definition of adventure is too specific. I don't agree with it. I'm just trying to explain what he means, because he can't, apparently. :P
meh, I do stuff outside of my comfort zone, but don't consider advemturous.
I do it kinda grudginly, but I do it.
It's kinda shamefull, my ma is jetsetting across europe constantly and doing all sorts of shit. she's adveturous.
Definitely. But the last manned lunar landing was in 1972. I believe NASA is now preparing for missions to mars, and that is a prospect. I think it was Stephen Hawking who said man must expand into space to survive, and I agree. So in my opinion that is a noble cause and a good point.
This is the sort of adventure I am referring to, sorry that was not made clear.
Clubbing can be considered adventurous by definition, but it is not the adventure I am talking about.
But that's not adventure, it's discovery. Would you call the guy sitting behind a computer that discovered evidence of the existence of dark matter with the Hubble an adventurer?
No I wouldn't. Adventure can lead to discovery. Back to the clubbing example. There's (hopefully) no danger in that, although some may consider it adventurous because it's outside of their comfort zone. I'm not sure a scientist in a controlled lab is outside of their comfort zone or partaking in any danger.
It's certainly not the kind of high adventure I'm talking about, where your life may be at stake.
If adventure can lead to discovery then discovery is not a pre-requisite for your 'high adventure.' Correct?
Right. Take the Crusades. While this is probably a poor example as it has negative connotations (and rightfully so). Regardless, the crusaders believed their cause was righteous. They were not discovering anything new, although they had an impact on the world.
Then modern day military men and women would/could be leading an adventerous life as well. See also, all the other professions and shit that've been posted in the thread up until now.
Well I think Scooter said how I feel about that best.
Most wars in the last few decades have not had very profound effects on the course of human history as a whole. Most have been small regional conflicts. Wikipedia puts this in good words.
In terms of war involving first world nations, this involves using usually overwhelming force to eliminate a rogue element. It's more like "upkeep" instead of something changing the course of history if that makes sense.
That goes back to the post hoc ergo proptor hoc thing, though. You're devaluing current individual actions by taking into account the current perceived historical context (who knows what tales will be told of the American Empire's Conquest of Durka Durkastan in 3025) while elevating past individual actions by applying the past historical context. You can say that a war is just or unjust but that has no impact on the life of the soldier while they're serving. Hamburger Hill can compare to some beachheads in the Pacific or the assault on Constantinople regardless of our take on 'nam or WWII or the Ottoman's conquest.
The thing is, I used to think like that, and it's probably partially true. It's obvious we over romanticise the past, mainly because we only know about it from old stories and the occasional BBC miniseries. But you can't read about the lives of dudes like James Brooke, Alexander Gardner and Henry Morton Stanley and not think that there was a lot of fun to be had back then. I can't discover the source of the nile, or become a pirate hunting rajah or travel India seeking revenge for my murdered family with a mercenary army at my back.
I mean, there are probably other adventures left to be had, but we won't find out about them for years. At least until they're long gone and the BBC is making a miniseries about them.
But, not done by you. Therefore, living an "adventurous" lifestyle is certainly attainable. I also reckon that if you haven't travelled very much in your life you don't get to see the full range of possibilities for your own life. If you never leave your country (let's say Canada, where I'm from), your range of experience if much smaller. I have a friend that has been a river raft guide for over a decade, and has done that on every continent in the world. Is that enough adventure for you? It would be for me. He's now settling down in one of the most beautiful places in the world, in my opinion. Good for him!
Where did he start off, though? London. Do you think he was exposed to any of that stuff while sitting at his desk in some office? Nope. He did once have a job like that but ditched it to pursue his dream. I've done the same, but am about 15 years younger than him.
Life is as much of an adventure as you make of it. I suggest getting on a plane to Christchurch, taking a townbus as far as you can to the burbs along the coast, and just start walking. Take a wind breaker, a sweater, lots of water and granola bars.
Or, you could try hitchhiking to Vancouver Island. Or just go to Poland and drive around Krakow. Alternatively, go to Instanbul/Constantinople and take in the history and culture there. Go to Cuba or some other beachy country for a week on your own (all inclusive though!). Whatever your favourite hobby/sport is, find out where a Mecca for that is, and then GO THERE and just do it for a half year or maybe ten years. Who knows? Just do it. Yeah, Nike. But you know, that's why their marketing guys get paid alot of money. Just do it. It makes sense.
If you sit in front of your TV all the time, life doesn't seem very adventurous at all. I don't watch much tv anymore except BSG, and I don't miss it at all.
Life doesn't live itself.
What about backpacking? Sure, you're not always in the wilderness, but it's quite the adventure. Running? There's an annual event in Greece where thousands of people run up then back down Mt. Olympus. Isn't that an adventure? Hell, just traveling is an adventure. Going to places you've never been before, seeing all of the amazing landmarks...
In short: an adventure is what you make of it. Almost anything can be an adventure if you want it to be.
Maybe my threshold for what constitutes an adventurous, amazing experience is lower than most people's, but I do have my fair share of really exciting ones also. Honestly, I think as long as you have a bicycle or even a car, and forsake actual directions, you can have limitless adventure.
In high school, I did all my travel by bicycle and a pocket map I got at a gas station that had like, three highways on it and no streets otherwise-- but it told me where towns were in relation to each other, and the adventure was finding where I was going regardless.
Looking for a Hardcore Fantasy Extraction Shooter? - Dark and Darker
And you could always take a job on a cargo ship that goes through the Malacca Strait, one of the most dangerous shipping routes in the world. Dangerous because of the enormous numbers of Pirates, fucking Pirates! Real ones, that will kill you!
if you want to be adventerous you must put yourself in danger, you must kill or enslave a people, and ideally it should never have been done before
Keeping peace? that's apparantly weak, because killing people (especially if they are innocent and you are just ignorant) is adventurous, peace keepers are wusses.
So if you go over to afghanistan chasing osama and kill whoever has an AK-47 because you thnk they are terorirsts, is that advernture? I bet it would be wouldn't it, that sort of like the crusades.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
We can choose to travel (hitchhike) almost anywhere we want, at any speed we want. We can choose how much to know about a given place or sitation, choose how much 'backup' (money, tickets, creditcards) to have, and make the adventure as risky, unpredictable, fun as we want. We can go couchsurfing and meet new people on our travels, while also having a place to stay. Or we can let people couchsurf at our own place, basically being passive-adventurous. We have the knowledge, luxury, and maybe a certain enlightenment(?) to understand other cultures, and people to some degree, learn the language and in some ways become more part of the places we go than ever before. Adventurous life is easier than ever!
On the other hand, we could just watch tv, surf the internet, and read books to satisfy our craving for the adventurous, the unknown. We have so much to do that we can live our whole lives doing essentially the same thing, while still feeling 'happy'. It's easier than ever to interact only with like-minded people through message-boards, clubs and sports activities. We don't really have big catastrophes, crusades, wars (at the moment), famines or plagues to force us into 'adventure'. Actually stepping out and being adventurous might be harder than ever, for us westerners.
In the end, I think the essential difference is choice. We have to make much more conscious choices to be adventurous or not. We're much more in control of our world than we used to be, for better and worse.