But these adventurers aren't discovering anything new like the adventurers you attempt to compare them to. They are attempting to sail around the world, climb mountains, cross desserts. These activities may have contributed to society when we didn't know what lay on the other side of the world, at the top of the mountain or in the middle of the dessert.

But today, these activities are hobbies. Some choose golf, other read, some cook and others choose adventuring. But we all fund them ourselves and if things don't work out we remedy them ourselves. We buy a golf buggy, reading glasses and liberal quantities of band-aids.

I love adventuring but I choose to wait until I can fund both my successes and failures.

I agree with the last comment. I came to retire in the Philippines and have been here over 2 years with my family. It is at times an extremely violent and corrupt parallel universe, but also an extraordinarily joyful one, much unlike Australia.

But nobody enticed me to come here, nor paid my way. It's all paid for - by me.

Yes I agree entirely with the author on this. A world where people still seek adventure is a better world than one where people don't. A nation that is prepared to get out there and render assistance when it is required is better than one that wont. The worst is a country that will render assistance but whinge the entire time. I grew up in New Zealand, a country surrounded by vast oceans and covered in mountains. People were constantly coming unstuck and needing rescuing. Never once do I recall people whinging about the costs of this. Rather, when a person was rescued it was considered a great thing and something for the country to be proud of.
There appears to be a very mean spirited and vocal minority in Australia who can't bear to render assistance to anyone without demanding that person pay the bill.

The problem lies with people attempting "adventures" without acquiring the skills or training necessary or, in the case you quote, being in the view of most people not sufficiently experienced in life to be able to withstand the rigours, often psychological, of such lonely adventures. Incidentally, by training I do not restrict to muscle conditioning and skill acquisition but also think that factors covered by the broad and inclusive term "maturity" need to be present.

wow

I'm an adventurer and didn't know it!

I sailed out onto the ocean with no experience apart from the book theory.

The theory is right and correctly applied with prudence, well alls honky dory.

The only thing I found that was anywhere near as character forming as that experience was ... public speaking.

I did however come back with ... the view that there is no such thing as security.

Sitting alone on an ocean at night tends to reveal our insignificance and our total inability to affect anything the universe could throw at us.

That lesson was compounded on return to shore. Nothing changed and it's amusing, still, to see how seriously people take themselves thinking they can make themselves and their world safe with assets, relationships, rules and knowledge.

There is no such thing as security and yes I do now love going to the ocean as often as possible, by myself, at night. I do have an epirb, as required by the 'rules', but I probably won't ever use it.

You foolish people might legislate safety but it is still my choice to laugh at you and give you 'the finger', if I'm silly enough to do something less than prudent, if I want.

And don't think I'd want you to particularly 'save' me! It might mean I'd miss my death.

<< Why criticise those who choose to push the limits? >>

For a number of reasons Peter:

If the risk of death or injury is high.

If people are just not properly prepared to undertake risky activities.

If others have to put themselves at significant risk in order to rescue foolish adventurers.

If the cost of rescue in the event of high-risk activities gone wrong is largely or partly borne by the taxpayer or local ratepayer or anyone other than the person who put themselves in the risky position in the first place.

If family and friends get negatively impacted by the injury or death of an adventurer that has undertaken an adventure that was just too risky.

And so on.

Encouraging a spirit of adventure is fine, but like most things it is not a case of all or nothing. Some adventuring activities are just too dangerous and silly and need to be strongly discouraged.

I’m an adventurer. I’m always out and about. I’ve just returned to Townsville from a couple of months around Birdsville, Innaminka, Noosa and Byron Bay and all spots in between. It was a great adventure. And the most dangerous activity I undertook was driving on the Bruce Highway!

You don’t need to push the limits to be an adventurer.

Peter, I agree we do not want to limit those who want to go adventuring, but I also see no reason why anyone else should be called upon to fund the rescue of these adventurers, when they stuff up.

Like Keith, I learnt to sail with a book in one hand, a rope in the other, & a tiller between my legs. It does work, at last count I have 53,000 nautical miles under my keel, much of it single handed. As an experienced highly skilled navigator I was then invited to do quite a few Hobarts. Racing sailing has little to do with long distance sailing.

My radio had a range of about 25 miles, I did not carry an epirb once out of Sydney, & did not expect any one to come looking for me. It would have been a bit hard, as I never told anyone my destination.

Round world sailors & racers are a little different. They are in contact, often for commercial reasons, & expect rescue, when things go wrong. I can see no reason that part of the entry requirements for these races should not be payment for an insurance policy to fund any rescue involved.

For record breakers, they could probably get sponsorship from an insurance company, to cover their rescue, & as semi commercial enterprises should be prepared to pay for insurance, if necessary.

So, I agree, let’s keep adventuring, but let’s not expect the public to pick up the pieces.

I heard an interview on ABC radio yesterday with this silly woman who is a car rally co-driver and organiser. She said that the objective was to get from point A to point B in the shortest possible time and quicker than any of your competitors.

In order to do that, she said that competitors went on a reconnaissance trip first and made copious notes about every corner, curve, crest, etc, so that when in competition they could fly through the course as quickly as possible with some knowledge of the road around each curve and over each crest and so on.

This just seemed to me to be so utterly absurd. There she was, screaming along as fast as she and her driver could possibly go, with absolutely no margin for error, and just about no chance of getting through the whole course without some error, meaning that the chances of serious mishap were extremely high. And for what? Some ludicrously misplaced sense of adventure!

I turned the radio off in disgust mid-interview.

RIP Peter Brock.