He set out to walk around the world. After 27 years, his quest is nearly over
Posted by wallflower 8 days ago
Comments
Comment by mitchbob 5 days ago
Comment by stickfigure 3 days ago
https://refuga.com/karl-bushby-the-man-who-chose-to-walk-aro...
This is how much he had to sacrifice. Leaving his only son when he was just five and not being able to watch him grow up like any other normal father. He also sacrificed a father/son relationship that may never be restored. “Out of everyone I knew in this world, I knew my son least of all.” Karl didn’t have any means of communication with his son for years but managed to reach him after contacting one of his friends on Facebook. While he was away, his son was suffering from depression and self abuse and had to use medication and therapy.
That's not sacrifice, that's abandonment. I have a young son not far from that age and trying to imagine how he'd feel if daddy just walked off nearly brings me to tears.
Comment by aggregator-ios 2 days ago
I no longer want to read about this person's journey or care to, because this is exactly the kind of person we need to stop hero worshipping. The irreparable damage to society from child abandonment is so large, that whatever he accomplished(?) by doing his stunt is negated.
I'm going to be unapologetic in saying that because this is irresponsible, immature behavior. He had a child, and then decided to leave for 20+ years to pursue his selfish interests while 100% abandoning his family and spouse to raise the child themselves. It's 100% trying to run away once he saw how difficult raising a family is and turned it into some BS stunt. That is also a relationship and pain and suffering that should never be forgiven, not during this immature person's lifetime.
Advice to others when you're thinking of doing this sort of thing where you abandon the people that love you to pursue some extreme interest. You may get exactly what you're looking for, with the cost of people never being close to you ever again.
Comment by contingencies 2 days ago
As a point of interest, the English do have a sort of stiff upper lip thing going on since forever. It's normal in English upper class families to send kids to boarding school. This was partly enabled by empire, but seems to have persisted. I have English friends who think nothing of living on another continent to their children.
On the mental bearings of extreme travelers, I used to do some long distance (multi-week) cycle touring and offered accommodation to others through platforms for this purpose while living in China. They say you have to be half-mad to get in to cycle touring in the first place. Some of these people were very much in a weird mental place. After a bad experience with a German woman I stopped participating in these systems. Some of them would turn up broke with no shoes really in need of help. A subset of the people who finish go on to become motivational speakers. Most of them probably wind up happy, but grizzled and impoverished with more physical than mental health.
Comment by fennecbutt 2 days ago
Politeness, queuing, etc all poppycock and not applicable as general rules.
Comment by lillecarl 2 days ago
Comment by crazygringo 2 days ago
> He found refuge, at first, in family life. In his early 20s, while stationed in Belfast, he met a local woman and had a child with her, Adam. In 1995, though, the marriage crumbled while the Bushbys were living in Hampshire, England. Adam and his mother returned to war-torn Belfast, where Karl, as a British soldier, was forbidden to visit. He found himself “alone, wondering where my life was going.” He created for himself the ultimate challenge: a journey that would show his paratrooper mates he was no runt.
He didn't leave until 3 years after he'd already been separated from them.
I'm not saying it's good that he didn't try to have more of a relationship with his son, obviously not. But it seems like it was already a complicated and broken relationship with the mother, across countries. Going on his trip wasn't walking away from an otherwise functional family.
https://archive.md/20250528132130/https://www.washingtonpost...
Comment by danielvaughn 2 days ago
There's far more depth and mystery to be explored in raising a human than there will ever be as a tourist. The deep stupidity it takes to think otherwise is depressing to behold.
Comment by nasmorn 1 day ago
It is just a day or two at a time but I realized at some point that this is what I have to do to be able to be a caring husband and father. If I don’t I will become depressed and miserable and no amount of loving them will overcome it. I am much more useful as a happy and functional human being 350 days a year than a miserable one for 365.
Comment by danielvaughn 3 hours ago
Comment by p1esk 2 days ago
Comment by jesterchester 2 days ago
Comment by stetrain 2 days ago
Comment by luqtas 2 days ago
edit: and yeah, i got the ick from the walking guy too
Comment by hexer292 2 days ago
I won't pass any judgement either way, but it's an interesting perspective.
With 100+ Million orphans in the world, having your own kids is anti-humanitarian (not anti-human) anyways, so why is being a corporate climber relevant?
Comment by luqtas 2 days ago
i think it should be this way. but what happens when you got someone pregnant by mistake? it can happen even with people taking secure measures... the man doesn't want but the woman do. she has the right of having it but the man shouldn't be obligated "on being a dad". maybe i think in a country that has abortion legalized the man also should abstain from paying pension. the otherwise (the man wanting and the woman not) should still depend on the woman decision, after all is her body and any consequence of pregnancy falls upon her
> With 100+ Million orphans in the world, having your own kids is anti-humanitarian (not anti-human) anyways, so why is being a corporate climber relevant?
yes, i would love a law punishing people (higher taxes maybe?) from having children when there are anyone for adoption in the country... beyond orphans, having kids is the worst offense to climate. much more than owning a car, going vegan and using an airplane for traveling occasionally, all summed together. it's serious business and i don't like the idea of scarce ecosystems and resources in 200-400 years :) i was just trying to show a case where it's somehow valid to a man simply walk away (no pun intended, i really didn't sympathized with the plot of our corporate climber here nor the walking guy)
Comment by fennecbutt 2 days ago
And this is the problem, your exact phrasing. You get her pregnant. A man gets a woman pregnant. It's putting all the onus on the man in an activity that requires two consenting participants (rape is obviously excluded for this argument).
It's kinda sexist because it diminishes the responsibility of the woman involved and strengthens the responsibility of the man involved, both bad things and everpresent through many aspects of society.
Comment by luqtas 2 days ago
have you read what i typed? where do i diminish the responsibility of a woman in my comment? i literally typed i'm against any decision on having or not a child BY MEN
Comment by machomaster 2 days ago
Women: 12-15 contraception types; 4 mitigation types; 4 cancellation types.
And still it is men who are being blamed, despite all the power being in women' hands. Men often only wanted sex, not the child. And yet, if pregnancy happened, there is nothing he can do about it, even if he was tricked or lied to.
If a woman gets gets pregnant, she has all the power. She is the sole decider what to do about it. Therefore, if the child was born it was always because the woman decided to do it.
If the woman decides to abort the child, she can also do it, without the guy/husband having any say.
This is the reason why I think that the abortion rights should be extended to men as well. If women have rights to be the sole deciders in getting the children aborted, then men should have the right to a financial abortion (she can decide what to do with the child, he should decide whether he wants to be financially participating in the woman's decision; her body, her choice. His money, his choice.). Not only would that be fair and balancing the reproductive rights, but would also greatly decrease the baby trappings and the number of single mothers.
And while we are at it, make paternity tests mandatory after each birth (before taking upon oneself a 20-year financial burden for the kid who is very often bot yours). This would greatly decrease adultery and paternity fraud.
Comment by machomaster 2 days ago
There aren't enough kids to be adopted in Western countries, even for very small number of people who would want it. The formal requirements, time and money expenses, as well as reliance on a huge amount of luck is often an insurmountable obstacle. My friends tried for many years, but were forced to abandon the process. This was incredibly sad, knowing how great parents they would have been.
Comment by stetrain 2 days ago
Comment by fennecbutt 2 days ago
I believe the law should be changed; if an unintended child is unwanted by the Father and the mother does not want to get an abortion (which is her choice) then the Father has the right to refuse contact with the child as well as refusing to support the child.
Cause straight men: at the moment, as soon as you stick it in you have zero choice, zero rights, even if you're using protection and there's been no agreement that you're doing it for fun or for reproductive purposes. But then none of you seem to care about it so...?
Comment by iteria 2 days ago
I understand why men feel this way, but realistically when a woman is stuck with a child she didn't want, which happens more often than people admit because of so many factors and systems set against the idea of abortion, she never gets to walk away.
Comment by code_for_monkey 2 days ago
Comment by bicepjai 2 days ago
Comment by GlitchInstitute 2 days ago
Comment by fwip 2 days ago
Comment by asacrowflies 2 days ago
Comment by bragr 2 days ago
Comment by lp0_on_fire 2 days ago
Comment by dangus 2 days ago
Some of these “make the news for being extraordinary” obsessions really seem to be something where the person in question should be talking to a therapist/psychiatrist before undertaking them.
Any of those types of “solo sailing the Pacific Ocean” or “performing [repetitive task] [longer/further] than anyone else” or “knitting 300,000 scarves for every sick child in the country” or “visiting every Rainforest Cafe” come across as untreated mental illness when you step back from the inspirational journalistic tone that these stories often take.
I always wonder what hole in people’s lives they’re trying to plug when they do crazy stuff like that.
Comment by ericmcer 3 days ago
Comment by DANmode 2 days ago
“what was the mom like?”
Comment by null_deref 2 days ago
Comment by ksdnjweusdnkl21 2 days ago
Comment by bastardoperator 2 days ago
Comment by justinator 2 days ago
Comment by sebastiennight 2 days ago
Comment by F3nd0 2 days ago
Comment by johnsmith1840 2 days ago
Comment by bicepjai 2 days ago
Comment by cogman10 2 days ago
He took the family's money, bought a plane ticket to south america for himself and a bunch of gear for himself. Who knows what he actually left them with. And then disappears for 20+ years.
I honestly hope that before this whole thing happened he was on his way towards a divorce so this abandonment was expected.
Comment by throwaway613745 2 days ago
Comment by vlle 2 days ago
Comment by paulddraper 2 days ago
Comment by throwaway29812 2 days ago
Comment by K0balt 3 days ago
We spent a lot of time at college coffee house in Fairbanks Alaska working over the ideas and overall design.
Nice fellow, strange aspirations, indomitable spirit. I’m glad to see his trek is nearing completion, and I wish him well on his further adventures. Good luck and Godspeed, Karl.
Comment by japhyr 3 days ago
I bicycled around North America for a year in 1998-1999, and finished in Alaska. It was wild to live on a bike for a full year, and then meet people who had been living that way (on bikes and on foot) for years at a time. There were a lot of people just starting out on aspirational long trips, but there were also a handful of people who had already gone a long long way. Fairbanks was an interesting meeting point for many of those travelers.
Comment by K0balt 3 days ago
Comment by hatradiowigwam 3 days ago
Comment by JKCalhoun 3 days ago
Perhaps this guy was waiting out the weather—for it to turn favorable to continuing his travels.
Comment by K0balt 3 days ago
Comment by tomrod 3 days ago
A blog or a book format would make for killer reading!
Comment by japhyr 3 days ago
I was teaching at the time, so the first summer without any obligations I rode across the northern US. Then I rode across the southern US the next summer. I loved it, and wanted to live outside for all the seasons. So the next year I quit my job and circled the continent: Seattle to Maine, down to Florida, across to California, then up to Alaska. I moved to Alaska a few years after the trip ended and spent 20 years there. We moved to North Carolina last year, because dark southeast Alaskan winters were getting old, and all our family is on the east coast.
I'm grateful to have had the opportunity to do that trip in the era of paper maps, and truly being out of touch for so much of that time. It pushes you to meet so many new people in all the places you visit, instead of staying in constant contact with people you already know. It was also nice to not see satellite imagery of the road ahead. Every day was a surprise. :)
I did write a book, The Road to Alaska: https://www.amazon.com/Road-Alaska-Eric-Matthes-ebook/dp/B07...
One of my claims to fame is writing one of the best-selling Python books of all time (Python Crash Course), and one of the lowest-selling travel books of all time. :)
Comment by macintux 3 days ago
And, she landed in the hospital after a car hit them.
Comment by japhyr 3 days ago
Peter and Barbara didn't do so well after that trip. One of their kids took a road trip with his mom recently, retracing their route from New Orleans to Oregon. He wrote a book about their road trip, and it was a pretty interesting read: https://www.jedidiahjenkins.com
Comment by LorenPechtel 1 day ago
Comment by jraby3 3 days ago
I had a cheap $150 univega bike and my friend had a $3000 cannondale. His broke mine didn't :)
We were amateurs. We hitchhiked to a bike shop near San Francisco to fix it. Had some saddle bags with our tent and sleeping bag, clothes and water.
It's very doable. Hardest part is just showing up.
Comment by LorenPechtel 1 day ago
Comment by thenthenthen 3 days ago
Comment by timonoko 2 days ago
Note propellor and gears making slow 360 degree pans.
Comment by JKCalhoun 3 days ago
I wish everyone could experience this, internalize this. Sometime in my 20's or 30's I cast off any fears that I had about people and the world in general. And it was like a huge weight was left behind.
I started to believe that it was paying too much attention to the news (especially cable news when it became a thing) that had come to shackle me with fear. Getting out in the world, traveling, making yourself vulnerable even (and nixing cable) were all things that made me start to love the world and people more. (My kids know me as the Pollyanna of the family.)
I suppose I am armchair psychologizing now, but I often see fear behind a lot of people's behavior (and even some friend's) and I feel sorry for them: I see them missing out on a lot of life experiences.
Comment by tsoukase 3 days ago
Comment by thorawaytrav 1 day ago
I’ve had the exact opposite experience. For me, the ratio is like 75% "worst of humanity." Traveling actually taught me to be wary of anyone who approaches me, especially if they are strangers.
Of course, I’ve had a few good moments like someone sharing water with me even though he was thirsty too, or an American tourist in Italy letting me use his phone to call even on theirs expensive roaming . In my hometown, I even lost my wallet twice and had it returned. But on the road, the ratio of bad to good is much worse. It’s frustrating because nobody wants to hear about this; they just tell me to shut up and stop being negative when I simply want to vent.
I was scammed by an "official tourist bus" agency that sold me a bus+ferry ticket, only to find out it was bus-only, and they demanded money for the ferry in the middle of nowhere (I couldn't do anything). I’ve been stolen from countless times: pickpocketed in Italy and in Spain my phone was grabbed right off the table. I got scammed with a non-existent apartment reservation (had to fight with Booking) and was sold another place that had bed bugs. I was once refused water when I was severely dehydrated in the mountains; the guy in the closed shelter just ignored my screaming and begging while he smoked and washed dishes. I ended up drinking shady water from the river. I’ve even been asked to leave places just because someone wanted to pick a fight with me in rural areas.
Comment by Jonovono 3 days ago
Comment by ericmcer 3 days ago
Comment by stackskipton 2 days ago
Comment by machomaster 2 days ago
Comment by JKCalhoun 3 days ago
Comment by macintux 3 days ago
Although, you definitely hear some tough stories that way.
I wrote about the ones I can remember here: https://opposite-lock.com/topic/45077/hitchhikers-over-the-y...
Comment by JKCalhoun 2 days ago
Comment by RickJWagner 3 days ago
Comment by asacrowflies 2 days ago
Comment by tkfoss 2 days ago
Comment by nabeards 3 days ago
Comment by bolasanibk 3 days ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Bushby
Still very impressive, but a little less impressive than I first thought.
Comment by hn_throwaway_99 3 days ago
> Due to visa limits, Bushby has had to break up his walk. In Europe, he can stay for only 90 days before leaving for 90, so he flies to Mexico to rest and then returns to resume the route.
Given that he literally swam across the Caspian Sea in order to avoid Russia and Iran because of legal issues, nevermind bring imprisoned in Russia due to what sounded like bureaucratic BS, it's more impressive than I first thought.
Comment by reisse 3 days ago
> They were detained by Russian border troop officers while they were crossing the Russian border near the Chukotkan village of Uelen, for not entering Russia at a correct port of entry.
Illegal border crossing is absolutely not bureaucratic BS in any country.
Comment by JKCalhoun 3 days ago
I'm laughing at the lack of nuance in laws in general. Some guy crossed the Bering Straight on foot as part of a 27 year quest to walk around the world and the law makes no exception.
I remember as a teen being hauled into a police station because a friend and I had been exploring the storm drains ("sewers") with a home-made flame thrower (okay, so the movie "Alien" had recently come out… Yeah, we left the flamethrower behind in the sewer when we popped our heads out and saw police).
Someone in the neighborhood had called the police because she had seen us going down the manhole opening. (The police said the report came through that some kids had "fallen" into the sewers.)
So I'm sitting in the police station with good cop and bad cop sitting there musing over my case. "How about 'Failure to use a sidewalk when a sidewalk was available'," bad cop said as he read from a book he was paging through. That got a laugh all around…
They let me off after an hour or so of this.
Comment by BryantD 3 days ago
I am a little bit torn in this case. From our vantage point it's obvious that Bushby wasn't running an elaborate long scam to get into Russia. In the moment... I don't know, former UK special forces guy? Long history of espionage between UK and Russia? Two months seems too long; it's also not as easy as your case of a teenager in the sewer.
Comment by JKCalhoun 2 days ago
Comment by hn_throwaway_99 3 days ago
Comment by pksebben 3 days ago
I'm saying this as someone who enlisted in the defense of said nations once. Most of the structures that make up a country these days are for the birds - let a guy hike for chrissake. I also lived where I could see Tijuana from my back yard and all the pearl clutching and self-fanning over "illegal immigrants" is a giant crock of blustery nonsense. We have bigger problems than normal folks just trying to live their lives.
Comment by godsinhisheaven 3 days ago
Comment by chimeracoder 3 days ago
Quite the opposite. The modern concept of "border sovereignty" as intertwined with the nation-state is a Westphalian construction. (Students of world history will recognize why this timing is not a coincidence). And even then, they didn't exactly catch on immediately.
Sovereign nation-states are a tiny piece of human history. They're not even the majority of recorded human history.
Comment by tomrod 3 days ago
Göbekli tepe easily refutes your isolationism, as does stone- and bronze-age globalism.
Comment by crazygringo 3 days ago
Even modern primates establish territories for their groups, and warn off and fight other primates attempting to encroach. So this general behavior is quite natural. The concept of open borders where anyone can just waltz in and live somewhere where they're not from or didn't marry into and haven't been invited -- that's actually the relatively newer idea, historically speaking.
I'm not arguing for more closed borders today, but I don't think we're should pretend that the historical human condition has somehow been "open".
Comment by nullstyle 3 days ago
Comment by crazygringo 2 days ago
If you left your tribe without being accepted into another (whether through marriage or some kinds of previous personal alliances you'd made), life would be pretty rough if you survived at all.
Sure tribes would split sometimes when they got too big or disagreements split them. But that's not about the individual level. That's akin to nation-state secession today.
There's no evidence that people were just regularly packing things up and going off and joining whatever neighboring tribe they wanted to, whenever they wanted to. And this is the type of thing where the book has come under such heavy criticism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything#Methodo...
Comment by nullstyle 2 days ago
In starting to read through some of the criticism's of the book just now, I was reminded of the seasonal hunting parties where many smaller groups would band together for better kills. That's what I mean with "tribal fluidity".
And by freedom of movement, the impression that I had coming away from the listen was that there were many ways in which someone could find themselves in a role where the could migrate through several communities and still live. looking at things again presently, I stumbled across https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopewell_tradition, which I think illustrates what I was trying to convey. "Border sovereignty" doesn't make much sense to me as a concept in that world... i think things were much more fluid. There weren't border checkpoints throughout prehistory.
Comment by tomrod 2 days ago
Comment by crazygringo 1 day ago
Comment by crazygringo 2 days ago
And you're absolutely right that tribes could join forces to accomplish objectives. And the Hopewell tradition is mainly about trade and cultural dissemination -- of course trade involves traveling with goods to other tribes.
But none of that changes my point. Even if tribes allied for a purposes, they still had their distinct geographic areas. If if people traveled to other tribes to exchange goods, they were just visitors traveling through.
"Border sovereignty" was absolutely real, just as it is in primates. There weren't literal manned border "checkpoints", but you can be sure that as soon as a tribe got wind of a stranger approaching, they'd immediately investigate and either allow them in (if e.g. someone friendly temporarily traveling through) or send them back in the opposite direction with force if necessary. The idea that the norm was that some stranger could just waltz in with their family and they'd be welcomed to stay and share the land is not supported by evidence.
(Even though that's definitely the anarchist ideology that Graeber was trying to push in his book, because that's exactly where he gets criticized for ignoring most of the evidence and cherry-picking examples.)
Comment by nullstyle 2 days ago
> they'd immediately investigate and either allow them in (if e.g. someone friendly temporarily traveling through) or send them back in the opposite direction with force if necessary.
Was there never the case that they investigated, saw that the strangers were floating down a river on the border of "their territory" and simply let them pass through unmolested? That doesn't happen today, and my intuition is that was simply so much space in the americas before recorded history that it happened often then.
Comment by crazygringo 2 days ago
I didn't say that the nationalism and border sovereignty that exist in 2025 are exactly what prehistoric humans practiced. That would obviously be absurd.
What I said was:
> Tribes generally lived in specific areas, and would go to war with other tribes if those tribes tried to expand into their turf. Or would go to war to expand their turf. That's basically the early version of nationalism and borders, with the tribe as the nation
In other words, we have the same instincts operating whether it's with a group of 300 people or 300,000,000. People occupy a geographic area and call it theirs and control who can live there. Many primates do the same.
And is your case of someone traveling down a river trying to contradict me? My example was of that being allowed if they weren't threatening. And the modern equivalent would be something like like a transit visa or connecting international airports.
I really don't know what you're arguing. We're not talking about people traveling anyways, the subject is whether tribes would just let random people come in and share their land. They didn't. They had a concept of group sovereignty, the same idea as national sovereignty, and of land they occupied.
If you want to insist that modern national sovereignty and borders drawn on maps are completely and utterly unrelated to tribal sovereignty and tribal borders -- if you don't see the obvious similarity, the same human group instinct and human territorial instinct -- then I really don't know what to tell you.
Comment by tomrod 2 days ago
Further, trade goods are found over large distances, which doesn't work over large distances and many alleged single-tribe-lands unless the good is extremely valuable and defensible from theft.
Your claim that great powers style organization is specifically refuted.
Comment by crazygringo 2 days ago
The original comment was about nationalism and borders, not nation-states and great powers.
I explained that the same concepts are found at the tribal level and even in primates. To occupy and defend your territory, and territory is defined by borders, even if they're just a river or the edge of a forest. And gunpowder has nothing to do with anything.
And I don't have the slightest idea what you're trying to say with trade goods.
So no, nothing I said is refuted. It would be helpful if you stuck to the subject at hand, however, without going off track entirely to modern nation-states. Nations are not the same thing as nation-states.
Comment by pksebben 3 days ago
Is nationalism going to peter out? No, of course not. Do some people care for reasons that are important to them? Sure, I don't want to tell anyone how to feel. I am just another jerk with an opinion like the rest of us.
But if you were to ask me, it's take it or leave it. I'd be more than happy to see free movement in the world. Just another set of rules I'm not using.
Comment by bluebarbet 3 days ago
But: back then only a handful of very rich people had the means to do that, and taxation and social protection were much lower than today. Those things are related. They (IMO of course!) are what make borders a pragmatic necessity.
Comment by jandrewrogers 3 days ago
Comment by alva 3 days ago
Comment by guywithahat 3 days ago
Comment by BeFlatXIII 3 days ago
Comment by bluebarbet 3 days ago
Comment by SauntSolaire 2 days ago
Comment by phantasmish 3 days ago
By ship? No. But you’re from Argentina and made it all the way up to the Rio and want to cross to work on US farms or whatever? Yeah whatever man, totally fine, just walk in. Anyone from the Americas was welcome, no waiting, no la migra hunting them, no nothin’
We didn’t change that until the ‘60s, and the only reason it didn’t cause a ton of problems immediately (farms at that time were already heavily dependent on migrant labor operating a bit under the table, and their lobbies were not quiet on the issue) was that enforcement was and has been, at times (and especially at first) mostly rather half-assed.
Comment by mrwrong 3 days ago
Comment by cindyllm 3 days ago
Comment by marcusverus 3 days ago
The vast majority of people care.
> We were nomads before we settled in cities, and it's only the designs of the empowered few that ever made the idea compulsory.
Reasoning from pre-agrarian living patterns is, quite frankly, hippy nonsense. And no, we didn't settle in cities because of "the designs of the empowered few", but because agriculture leads to more permanent, prosperous settlements, which attract raiders, and settling close together allowed for common defense. In other words, as soon as people earned a living by their own planning and sustained effort, (as opposed to merely collecting the bounty of the earth) they settled down and drew borders to protect what they had built from people who wanted to just show up and reap the rewards of their effort, at their expense!
> I also lived where I could see Tijuana from my back yard and all the pearl clutching and self-fanning over "illegal immigrants" is a giant crock of blustery nonsense.
We can't have borders because you could see Tijuana from your back yard?
> We have bigger problems than normal folks just trying to live their lives.
Defending borders is the most basic function of the state. It quite literally does not have anything better to do than to defend its borders.
Comment by cthalupa 2 days ago
Fundamentally, everything in your post down to this ending boils down to whether or not you think that immigrants coming into the country is a good thing or not. People will try to split hairs over "doing it the right way," when until the 1900s doing it the right way was basically just having enough financial stability to make it here - many states had nothing beyond 'means testing' that would easily be passed if you could afford to make it to America rather than stowing away, and many states had less than that. For most of American history, immigrating properly was literally just showing up.
For the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants, the only difference between them and the legal immigrant is the amount of paperwork on file. And many of us arguing that that paperwork matters are beneficiaries of a time where that paperwork wasn't necessary.
It's very explicitly a case of "Fuck you, got mine."
Comment by marcusverus 17 hours ago
Comment by nephihaha 2 days ago
Well, it looks we'll have some kind of global government within a couple of decades. It won't be better than what we have now, in fact it will be even less accountable.
Comment by guerrilla 3 days ago
Comment by uhdhr 3 days ago
If you enter the territory of a swan, especially during nesting season, the swan might attack you.
If a foreign object enters some animal's body, the immune system may attack that object.[0] Allergy might be related to the immune system misidentifying allergens.
Squirrels can be surprisingly territorial.
Ants have wars. [1]
This is not surprising, since the consequences of territory being compromised can be severe. For instance, in this case [2], the territory was compromised through deception, like pretending to be one of them, and it led to the severe weakening or death of the whole colony through the mass devouring of their offspring.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_body_reaction
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_ants
[2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/123ke...
Comment by guerrilla 2 days ago
We must ban the squirrels from ever leaving the tree they grew up in! Let no bear seek a new cave lest she be punished with a swift death.
Comment by gosub100 3 days ago
Comment by bluedino 3 days ago
Comment by uhdhr 3 days ago
In that video, was the ewe and lion cub pets or wild animals?
Comment by mrwrong 3 days ago
Comment by yawpitch 3 days ago
Comment by falcor84 3 days ago
Comment by uhdhr 3 days ago
One definition of "better" could be to seek to avoid the extinction of the human species and of civilization. With that definition, in the current situation, taking measures to help avoid nuclear weapon usage, could be considered in depth and genuinely "better".
Comment by uhdhr 3 days ago
Some cells have cell walls, and viruses as I understand it have to penetrate that wall.
Nuts and fruit sometimes have protective shells.
An argument could be made that borders and territory are fundamental.
For an agent that seeks to defeat border control mechanisms, it can potentially be effective to convince the target parties that border control mechanisms generally or specifically are harmful, are useless, or have drawbacks. This is not always completely false in all cases, for instance regarding immune systems misidentifying harmless allergens as harmful, causing potentially significant harm as allergy. However, if an agent uses such approaches, they have to be careful not to buy into that idea themselves, lest matters may become strange and weird. And, in the modern day, if an agent is especially successful and competent with defeating border control mechanisms, considering the extreme power that the human species holds these days, such as with nuclear weapons, it puts an extreme responsibility on such successful agents, at least in the current systems. Otherwise, the consequences might be extremely detrimental to the human species as a whole.
Comment by yawpitch 2 days ago
IT defenses are just an existing human cognitive bias carried forward into a new realm… a bad idea carried forward is still a bad idea.
The cell wall of the vascular plants doesn’t exist to keep viruses (or anything) out, it exists to provide structural rigidity and keep water pressure in… in fact any plant without a sufficiently permeable cell wall dies as a consequence.
The virus in turn isn’t an agent at all, it just passively exploits the permeability of cell walls and membranes in order to replicate. In doing so it helps drive the cell’s evolution, by both acting as a pressure and a mutagen. Life, again, depends on information transfer across permeable membranes.
Nuts and other fruits, by the way, are the sexual apparatus of the plant… they don’t even begin to develop until a migration has occurred, and once they’ve developed their primary purpose is, again, to keep energy and water in more than they’re to keep anything out… in fact they universally fail to function if they’re too good at keeping the outside out.
Comment by 15155 2 days ago
People didn't receive handouts from governments in centuries past for just showing up and performing no contributory function. Kill all entitlements and let's open em' back up!
> still isn't like this for other animals
What reality are you living in where countless animal species aren't territorial? This is common sense.
Comment by mnky9800n 3 days ago
Comment by guerrilla 3 days ago
Comment by mnky9800n 2 days ago
Comment by guerrilla 6 hours ago
Comment by MrBuddyCasino 3 days ago
The idea that borders are unimportant is very very recent. That is to say, its commie gobbledygook.
Comment by nozzlegear 3 days ago
In English it's "have enforced their borders for millennia"; the phrase "since [length of time]" is almost always grammatically incorrect and a giveaway that someone's not a native English speaker.
Comment by MrBuddyCasino 3 days ago
Comment by BeFlatXIII 3 days ago
Comment by MrBuddyCasino 3 days ago
Comment by uhdhr 3 days ago
Comment by MrBuddyCasino 3 days ago
Eg Iberian Peninsula (Reconquista and later): Foreign parties >10 armed men could not cross without permission between christians and muslims.
Chinese frontier zones, Scythians, Huns, Mongols, Turks etc all had similar rules. If you want to go back further, then Assyria, Egypt, Hittites, Greece had such limits.
Comment by uhdhr 3 days ago
Some nations, countries or groups, or other levels, did play with some of those mentioned ideas of less border control mechanisms in some ways or levels, also going back thousands of years.
Countries that were not successful with border control mechanisms, sometimes ceased to exist.
But there are many different levels and ways, and the whole topic is, to put it very mildly, extremely complex.
Comment by yawpitch 3 days ago
Comment by ginko 3 days ago
I'd say no-border cosmopolitanism is more of a classic liberalism thing.
Comment by MrBuddyCasino 3 days ago
There are many that think themselves "cosmopolitan", when it is a delusion and coping mechanism about being a parochial hicklib. A chip on their shoulder that makes them especially fervent acolytes of liberalism (as in: Obama flavoured, not the other kind), hoping it offsets their humble origins after moving to the big city, so folks won't get the idea that they are flyover country chuds that vote the wrong way.
A cosmopolitan, as in one that truly knows the different cultures and people of the world because he has deep first hand experience, or has read so much that it allows to draw some independent form of conclusion, is either a strong proponent of borders or a fool.
The core tenet that makes this communism-adjacent is the denial of differences: everyone is equal, "no one is illegal" etc pp. Ignorance of history and the nature of man is a must to take this position.
Comment by miyoji 3 days ago
This is the most incredible No-True-Scotsman fallacy I've ever read.
Comment by MrBuddyCasino 3 days ago
Comment by nozzlegear 3 days ago
Tell us how you really feel, good grief.
> everyone is equal, "no one is illegal" etc
This but unironically.
Comment by MrBuddyCasino 3 days ago
This is not "how I feel" or my actual opinion of liberals in general. It is a certain archetype that I unfortunately know all too well.
> This but unironically.
You can just say you're a communist, you know. The core tenet will always be some appeal to equality, no matter how you like to describe yourself ("socialist", "liberal", "a decent heckin' human being" in Reddit speech or what have you).
Comment by nozzlegear 2 days ago
Comment by MrBuddyCasino 2 days ago
Comment by falcor84 3 days ago
Comment by LorenPechtel 1 day ago
Neither the US nor Canada does that now, effectively slicing the Pacific Coast Trail at the border. And now we have the scumbags for no good reason blocking off access to the southern terminus of the Continental Divide Trail. That fence isn't going to stop someone trying to sneak into the country!
Comment by em-bee 3 days ago
that doesn't make any sense for two reasons. first, he only entered the EU in september this year, so either the 90 days are not up yet or he should be in mexico now. is he? but why would he fly to mexico when he could just go to the UK?
but more importantly, he is a british citizen. getting a visa to walk through europe, especially now that he already has a track record of walking for so long should really not be an issue.
Comment by ritzaco 3 days ago
Many europeans have never had to apply for a real visa in their life (I don't mean the online ones, or the apply on arrival ones, I mean the ones where you submit a 20 page form of personal details and hotel bookings and letters from friends you'll be staying with and bank statements and a full travel history) and they assume that I'm just making life difficult for myself by not doing some simpler option that they assume must exist.
I don't know about what visa options UK citizens have for the EU since brexit, but I'd be surprised it was as simple as "I feel like spending more than the 90 days I get".
Comment by em-bee 2 days ago
why? that's exactly what i think he should be able to do. it's not like he spent 27 years walking across the planet in order to then misrepresent what he wants to do in the EU.
Comment by machomaster 2 days ago
Comment by em-bee 2 days ago
for the third time: i am talking about how easy it should be for a UK citizen with his track record, to get a visa that allows him to walk through the EU for longer than 90 days.
Comment by machomaster 1 day ago
The facts are:
1. The only EU-wide visa is 90/180. Citizens of UK don't need to apply for a separate visa.
2. Past the duration of 90 days, the matter goes to the national level. EU-wide long-term travel does not exist legally and this is done purposefully!
3. So the long stays require one country as your base. Long STAYS, not TRAVELS. Meaning that you get your official EU country of residence. Yes, you can travel to other EU countries, but outside travel still remain capped at 90/180, which is not useful in case of traveling through more than 2 countries.
Comment by em-bee 1 day ago
some EU countries offer extended tourist visas and there is the digital nomad visa, for which while tied to a country, it doesn't even make sense that it would only allow to stay in one country. the point of being a digital nomad is after all to be nomadic.
so yeah, it's going to take some research. but i don't think it's impossible.
EU-wide long-term travel does not exist legally and this is done purposefully!
this being done purposefully suggests you have read that somewhere. got a reference?
Comment by throw-the-towel 1 day ago
Comment by machomaster 1 day ago
This is absolutely not how bureaucracy works. In cases when there are special visas (like USA's talent visas), they are well documented. There are no special under-table visas that are given to people who a clerk at the Embassy likes.
> there is the digital nomad visa, for which while tied to a country, it doesn't even make sense that it would only allow to stay in one country.
Once again, we are talking about reality, about how things are, instead of how things ought to be in your mind...
E.g. check Portugal D7 / digital-nomad visas: https://www.portugalist.com/d7-vs-d8/
> The term “Digital Nomad Visa” can create a lot of confusion as many other countries offer digital nomad visas that are temporary, and do not offer a path to permanent residency or citizenship. Some also don’t require you to pay taxes. Portugal’s Digital Nomad Visa is aimed at those that want to live in Portugal more or less full-time and make Portugal their home. In return for downsides like physical stay requirements and being taxed on your worldwide income, you do get access to the public healthcare system and you can later qualify for permanent residency and Portuguese citizenship.
> this being done purposefully suggests you have read that somewhere. got a reference?
Can't really provide you with the proof of something (work to unify EU visas) that doesn't exist. You can just check how the system works and how purposefully visas are left to be decided on the National level.
Even with the EU-level status of long-term residents ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_resident_(European_U... ), the details depend on the individual country. And even then, this is how it goes e.g. in Finland ( https://migri.fi/en/permanent-residence-permits ):
> If your stay in another Schengen country takes more than 90 days, you must apply for a national residence permit of that country.
> Your P-EU permit granted by Finland will expire if another EU Member State grants you a long-term resident's EU residence permit for third-country nationals (a P-EU permit).
So it's the same limit again.
Comment by em-bee 1 day ago
that's not what i meant. only that, if an exception is possible, then the embassies are the first point of contact. the second point of contact are the foreign ministries of each EU country. there are special visas for artistic or sports activities, so i believe that a special visa for this trip is possible, and that there is an institution that has the authority to grant an exception to the 90 rule. some countries do for example allow an extension, so that would expand the time possible to 180 days, and that's not even very special. longer visas can also be granted for medical or other reasons.
for example this trip could be defined as an EU wide sports activity that takes a year. i didn't see anything in the regulations that would prohibit that.
the problem with getting such a visa is less rules that would prohibit it, but that getting any exceptions requires the trust and goodwill of the involved institutions and that may be harder than it looks.
Portugal’s Digital Nomad Visa is aimed at those that want to live in Portugal more or less full-time
ok, well, but that kind of misses the point of a digital nomad visa. as a digital nomad i am not at all interested in staying in one place full-time, much less in permanent residency or citizenship. but that's not the point of this discussion, just a comment.
Can't really provide you with the proof
i wasn't looking for proof, just that saying that it was purposefully designed implies intention, and that intention ought to be documented somewhere. my question is rather: are you basing that intention on something or do you just assume that the intention is to not allow long term travel? i am not trying to imply anything here, i am just curious if you came across something that would support that idea.
i appreciate your detailed response. i did some searches but i could not find anything that specific.
Comment by machomaster 1 day ago
What is prohibiting it is the fact that longer term things are decided on the national level (EU is not a nation). Some countries may (or may not) have whatever exceptions (Presidential, humanitarian), but they would only apply inside that country.
1. Short stays (<90 days). Schengen sports visa or standard visa exemption. Only for competition/training travel.
2. Long stays (>90 days):
- National sport or work/residence visas/permits specific to the country where you will base training and competitions.
- Once you hold a national residence permit, you can travel in other Schengen states, but long stays elsewhere are still restricted by Schengen rules (90/180 days).
> that kind of misses the point of a digital nomad visa.
Often what one wants or imagines is not what it is in reality. You can freely check what other nomad/IT options other EU and non-EU countries have and you will be surprised. Afaik Portugal's rules are a norm, not an exception.
> that intention ought to be documented somewhere. my question is rather: are you basing that intention on something or do you just assume that the intention is to not allow long term travel?
I base it on:
1. Understanding that EU was created from bottom-up. EU has only the powers that countries agreed and allowed to be given. EU is not "created on top and then decided to downstream some of the decision power to lower levels".
2. Following the political discussions, polls, etc. This is so far fetched, to put all the visa decisions on the EU level, that there is not even a discussion about it. There is no opposition to the idea, because the idea itself is so outside of Overton window that it is not funny. This is akin to asking for evidence of American individual states being against making all the taxes Federal.
3. For more info, research the discussion and opposition to EU level of refugee agreements (be it Libya, Syria or Ukraine). It's a mess, all the countries want to decide for themselves.
> i did some searches but i could not find anything that specific
I hate to be that guy, but please use AI instead of Google. AI is really good at searching and explaining these types of questions.
Comment by em-bee 1 day ago
if i ask AI i get this:
Yes, an EU embassy can issue special visas in exceptional cases, even if they do not fit the standard types of visas. These may be granted based on specific circumstances or urgent needs, but they are not commonly available.
which is what i have been saying all along, but i could not verify even that answer. the reference links didn't contain any text that would confirm this. so i didn't bring it up here.
asking further i get that a long-stay visa should be possible as long as he spend less than 90 days in each specific country, and maybe he has to travel back and forth between the chosen long-stay country and the countries he wants to walk through, but in practice, without checks, or without explicit registration every time he crosses an inner-EU border, how would anyone know? i guess 3 months could be enough for each EU country he passes through, so maybe that could work.
that too, i already concluded from the basic search i did before and from your comments. given that the AI answer here only confirms what i already understood, combined with the unreliability of AI in general, i don't find AI helpful enough to be worth it.
Comment by machomaster 18 hours ago
This is garbage from the very beginning, since the EU does not have embassies. All the embassies belong to individual EU countries, further demonstrating that visa arrangements are done on national level.
> a long-stay visa should be possible as long as he spend less than 90 days in each specific country, and maybe he has to travel back and forth between the chosen long-stay country and the countries he wants to walk through
This is exactly what I told you. So basically it is exactly how he has it today (can travel 90 days out of 180), except:
1. The non-travel days he can spend at his base in Mexico, instead of unfamiliar country.
2. Doesn't have to do bureucracy in order to get a long-stay visa. You are severely underestimating how difficult this process is. Imho he wouldn't even be able to get it, at least I don't see compelling reasons to give him a visa by any of the EU countries.
> in practice, without checks, or without explicit registration every time he crosses an inner-EU border, how would anyone know?
Because he is famous enough (and certainly will be after he finishes his trip) for the officials to pay attention. He doesn't want to get an EU-wide ban, especially before completing his journey.
Comment by em-bee 16 hours ago
with "how would anyone know?" i meant the reverse. if there are no stamps that document the travel within the EU, how can he prove that he did not violate the rules?
all in all, these visa rules are way to complicated. it sounds like that without the EU existing, he would have had 90 days in each european country mostly visa free. so that is in effect a regression. as a EU citizen i am not happy about that.
i traveled across europe before the schengen area was created, and there was no problem entering any country and stay there other than some countries charging a lot for the visa at the border. anyone with a british or US or similar "powerful" passport would have been able to do the same.
Comment by Broken_Hippo 3 days ago
I live in Norway, have residence and stuff. I can travel freely through most of europe without much hassle - but I can only travel 90 days out of 180 days - then you gotta go out of the area (or back to your home country if it is inside), stay out or home for 90 days, and then start anew. The closest border to me - one to Sweden - has no real security. A customs office because there is border shopping in the area and I know they very occasionally stop folks. A crossing an slightly inconvenient distance north just has signs.
Anything outside of this requires paperwork.
Comment by em-bee 2 days ago
Comment by machomaster 2 days ago
Because of one of the original 2 rules he set up from the beginning.
Comment by nly 3 days ago
Comment by slow_typist 3 days ago
Comment by anticodon 3 days ago
Comment by UniverseHacker 3 days ago
By definition anything illegal is illegal, and no, you cannot bring a firearm across the border into the USA without a paperwork process.
Comment by theultdev 1 day ago
Of course it's illegal. But it used to be open season on the US border was the point. There were so many crossings, this dude would have gone unnoticed. Carrying or not. Nowadays not so much.
Comment by UniverseHacker 1 day ago
Comment by theultdev 1 day ago
Nothing racial about it, many races from many nations crossed illegally. It's about legality, not race.
Comment by shmeeed 2 days ago
Did it not occur to him that this might be a bad idea?
Comment by paganel 3 days ago
Why didn't he take the ferry there?
Comment by anentropic 3 days ago
Comment by falcor84 3 days ago
> “I can’t use transport to advance, and I can’t go home until I arrive on foot,” Bushby said. “If I get stuck somewhere, I have to figure it out.”
Comment by throw-the-towel 1 day ago
Comment by keiferski 3 days ago
Comment by rimeice 3 days ago
Comment by alexey-salmin 3 days ago
Comment by LorenPechtel 1 day ago
Comment by ericmcer 2 days ago
After that he really slows down to a crawl and has long periods away from the trail entirely. Whats crazy is that he doesn't like... go home to visit his son and family or try to somehow help the people in his life, he just goes to South America until he can continue.
The fact that when he was forced to take extended (3mo+) breaks he still refused to go home is a bit telling.
Comment by tennisflyi 3 days ago
Comment by ericmcer 2 days ago
Comment by hi41 2 days ago
Comment by junon 3 days ago
EDIT: Yeah same guy, this was posted to Reddit a while back. https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1pfdkfs/...
Comment by gizmo385 3 days ago
Comment by szszrk 3 days ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1pfdkfs/...
Comment by K0balt 3 days ago
FWIW his son joined him and they walked together for a while when he was in his 20s, seems like they reconciled.
Comment by fakedang 2 days ago
Also after he left, his wife literally became a single mom, and had to move to receive family support.
Comment by zzrrt 1 day ago
Comment by koakuma-chan 3 days ago
Comment by nrhrjrjrjtntbt 3 days ago
Comment by victorbjorklund 3 days ago
Comment by 2muchcoffeeman 3 days ago
Comment by Cupprum 3 days ago
Comment by asacrowflies 2 days ago
Comment by 2muchcoffeeman 2 days ago
Why do you feel like you need to be morally superior to him? Life is hard and we all make mistakes.
Comment by mykowebhn 3 days ago
Noraly, the motorcyclist, has already traveled through South and North America, Africa, and Asia, some multiple times. Currently, I believe she is in Tajikistan about to enter Kyrgystan.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEIs9nkveW9WmYtsOcJBwTg
Max Roving, the cyclist, has already cycled through Afghanistan and he is currently trying to ride Africa north to south. He just completed Algeria and is about to enter Morroco.
Comment by _rpxpx 3 days ago
Comment by yawpitch 3 days ago
Seems to me you might want to relax your filters a bit and meet some of the other brilliant people.
Comment by _rpxpx 3 days ago
Comment by yawpitch 3 days ago
And yes, I can assure you, you can absolutely have both while engaging in blogging, vlogging, serialized writing, or any other form of serialized expression.
Not all of vlogging has any relationship to your straw man.
Comment by _rpxpx 3 days ago
Comment by yawpitch 2 days ago
I have seen a lot of people consumed by the algorithms of very uninteresting, in there places. The places I go to to see people consumed by travel vlogs.
Your problem isn’t with the people creating social media, your problem is with the people advertising on it.
Comment by senordevnyc 3 days ago
That's a much more reasonable position than the idea that sharing your journey on Youtube "ruins" it, or "kills the adventure". Different people prefer different things.
Comment by dyauspitr 3 days ago
Comment by sgt 3 days ago
Unfortunately there are some exceptions and I believe the highest risk area is India. A lady vlogger on motorcycle was recently gang raped there by 7 men.
Comment by nrhrjrjrjtntbt 3 days ago
Comment by Nextgrid 3 days ago
Comment by Reubachi 3 days ago
Noraly/Itchy boots rubs me the wrong way far too often. Her content always **ends up being top notch and respectful**, but starts off with a sour taste after the title is "I should have never come here." and the content is a lovely journey......
Idk. This whole genre is: western person is achieving a "dream" life as a function of their birth and wealth status. Has a good time, seemed to enjoy the journey. But then pretends the trips are hampered by 1-2 (expected) events not normal for a westerner, and reflects that in the title for views.
I think the effect is more negative than not.
Comment by mykowebhn 3 days ago
Comment by patresh 3 days ago
Comment by tasuki 3 days ago
Isn't there, like, the ocean? Or does he go the Karl Bushby way over the Bering Strait?
Comment by pncnmnp 3 days ago
Followed him a bit last year. A really sweet and enthusiastic person.
Comment by mrcaramelpants 3 days ago
Comment by compounding_it 3 days ago
I realize that a lot these days. People are not inherently so bad but greed is a nasty drug that has the potential to ruin the best.
When you have nothing to offer but kindness and compassion, it is very simple to see the humanity side of things in this world and it can feel really amazing.
Comment by thinkingemote 3 days ago
There is a kind of psychological pain of cognitive dissonance when we discover this "Wait, but they are meant to be ${group_member} why are they so nice and kind to me?". But one can only experience (e.g. via travelling) and learn from these experiences, it's hard to convey to others that the world really is __much__ more kinder and nicer than our preconceptions demand it should be.
It's easier and less painful to box away people into nice and not nice groups. And it's often most common to label people similar to ourselves in the nice group. It's a narrow view of the world. Travelling opens up our preconceptions of people, the opposite of a narrow view: travelling broadens the mind.
Comment by Panzer04 3 days ago
Comment by energy123 3 days ago
If the social permissions change like Rwanda in 1994 then your nice neighbors would sooner chop you to pieces.
Comment by throw-the-towel 1 day ago
Comment by keepamovin 3 days ago
Comment by survirtual 3 days ago
They get to write the narrative.
We can analyze just one small tool in the belt of narrative control: censoring. If you've been warned or banned on Reddit, you can imagine how this works. If you've said something against the mold of what they allow, you will get censored. With so many people commenting, some subset of people will always say what you want to see. You censor or derank opinions you don't want, and boost opinions you want. This is a defensible form of writing a narrative without actually having to artificially write anything.
Of course with AI, you can now just write anything and seed ideas.
Give such sick people the reigns, and you get a false reality has little connection to what's really happening.
Comment by keepamovin 3 days ago
Aside from that, I'm not saying you're wrong or right about that theory, I'm just wondering how it falls down around that idea.
On this topic of interenet behavior, maybe I'm not really sure or maybe I am, but my view is it's less about some sort of diempowering imposition of external/elite evil upon a innocent and good mass population, but rather about the medium itself enabling latent negativities in the populus to surface. Which doesn't mean the population is itself not good and innocent - it is also multifaceted. Thus, such dynamics might operate in a "Stanford Prison Experiment" kind of "cover and permission" way.
My view of many of these dynamics are its more about emergent self-regulating properties of a system than it is about top-down control. In a sense, that's a lot more liberating and empowering for people, because then they are not cast as victims of some evil from on high, they are the architects of their experience, for good or bad.
The view you espouse, while seeming to empower the downtrodden by taking aim at hidden sources of evil power, I feel in fact disempowers by playing up the fake victim narratives that disempower and confuse people. In other words, your idea, while seemingly edgy and incisive, may in fact be what any such extant "evil elites" would want you to think, if they hope to have control! Haha :)
Anyway, I'm not trying to cut down your idea here in this topic - personally I believe people are very much in charge of their experiences, that's what I've found in my life - but in this kind of mass topic, who knows? Anywa, thanks for responding. Just some food for thought and maybe discussion. Have a good one :)
Comment by wizzwizz4 3 days ago
Unless extreme wealth is part of the diagnostic criteria, this model says the diagnostic criteria would be designed to reinforce archetypes in the general populace, and that the status quo powerful would simply not receive such diagnoses. That doesn't stop other people from reviewing the checklists and drawing their own conclusions. (I, myself, haven't done this, so I'm not sure whether the "powerful people are diagnosable as mentally ill" conclusion is valid.)
> Thus, such dynamics might operate in a "Stanford Prison Experiment" kind of "cover and permission" way.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is actually a good example: Philip Zimbardo had his thumb very firmly on the scales, and excluded that information from his write-up. The claim that "people are just like that" has been fabricated enough times that I'm deeply suspicious of it.
Comment by keepamovin 2 days ago
Re your point about the SPE, I'm not saying I disbelieve you -- but I don't know -- (seems plausible that a big ticket "objective experiment" was infact non-scientifically reproducible or even used as a psyop to gaslight people into accepting their "original sin" - or whatever) but can you show some evidence of this?
Comment by kakacik 3 days ago
The societies we humans build always allow such persons to rise to the top - it doesn't matter if market democracy or brutal communism, fascism etc. The last type that didn't work well was some sort of feudal kingdom style where power was shared among elite across generations, inherited and rarely claimed by more competent, ambitious and vicious folks from lower ranks. But this is also how we got most of the progress in past 150 years, so its a double-edged sword. I wish I had a solution, maybe some Deus Ex-style of neutral AGI, but who would build such an AGI when everybody competent wants more power and manipulate others to their favor.
Heck, we often celebrate them by looking at their achievements, conveniently ignoring what utter piece of shit they are as humans (Ford is a prime example - a great inspiration for Hitler among others, and musk doesn't go far and look how uncritically he was celebrated also here for a long time and often still is... but the list is very long, basically almost all billionaires and high power folks).
With great power comes great impact even if they don't try, and who doesn't like some ego boost. People imitate them, follow them, subconsciously accept their values more easily. They literally imprint their values on rest of the world and we allow it due to our laziness, convenience and inherent sheepish mentality of masses which we are part of whether we like it or not - just look at how most folks need some form of a role model.
Comment by keepamovin 3 days ago
All this tho -- can the mother have no impact? I don't think so. Children are raised by their mothers. Why put the blame on dads, if solely? Seems not fair. A bifurcation in blame in society that can only cause a fracture that leads to greater wrongs later.
Also, while such questions are intriguing -- much of this talk of what's wrong with the internet, points the blame at a few rich people. This seems misguided, and misses the point that the internet is largely "us" - all of us. If we are doing something "wrong" but deflect, we're never going to get better. Even if some bad people are trying to push buttons, we're the ones that have to take responsibility for how we act and to do good.
When I'm chatting online, I'm sure as hell not talking with Bezos - he can't text that much, least of all in the hot-tub. I'm talking with some random. And we each have to take resopnsibility for our behavior. If the rando I'm talking with says, "Why am I bad? Because Jeff Bezos made me this way." It sounds totally ridiculous. And it is, of course. I think the hijacking of a question about "why is the internet negative sometimes" into a 2-minutes-hate on rich-elite is the wrong approach to solutions and understanding.
Comment by anomaly_ 3 days ago
Comment by keepamovin 3 days ago
Comment by wongarsu 3 days ago
For many years the prevailing notion was that anonymity turns people into dickheads. But they did studies on this, and it turns out it's just that the real-life dickheads just dominate the discussion and the reasonable people post way less
Comment by keepamovin 3 days ago
Comment by wongarsu 3 days ago
1: https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/71/6/922/63636...
2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rJ20sca3fg6epXwVbGj7HdNfCH4...
Comment by mmsimanga 3 days ago
Comment by keepamovin 3 days ago
That reminds me, I'm making a text-based terminal browser. It might achieve that! Haha :)
Comment by mmsimanga 3 days ago
Comment by nly 3 days ago
People are more likely to be kind to you and give you your time when they're not in a cut throat corporate hunger games situation themselves.
Comment by artemonster 2 days ago
Comment by survirtual 3 days ago
Just as in history we learn of emperors and kings instead of the common person, most digital content is about the modern day lords, barons, emperors, and kings. They call them billionaires, presidents, CEOs, prime ministers, etc now, but they are the exact same as they always have been.
If you turn the screen off and take a walk, start talking with real people that actually provide value to society, the world is much kinder than we've all been made to believe.
The real people are a good people, as they long have been. Their stories may not be written, but the Earth itself carries their memories.
Comment by corentin88 3 days ago
He walked a bit, but mostly sailed though.
The book (Equator) worths the read. Especially the part in Africa.
Comment by lrkwa 3 days ago
Comment by fhd2 3 days ago
Good teaching moment for why estimates of big endeavours tend to be off, too. He appears to have slightly overestimated his average walking speed and greatly underestimated breaks (only some of which were by choice from what I gather).
The total journey appears to be 58,000 km (36,000 miles).
Expectation: 8 years, which translates to a daily average of almost 20 km (~12.5 miles). That's about 4-6 hours of walking time at my speed. Every. Single. Day. In sickness or in health, on country roads or through frozen wastelands. Seems optimistic even without anticipating any delays?
Reality: After 8 years, he had actually finished about half the distance, which I already find impressive. As of October, he has 2,213 km (1,375 miles) left. That means he traveled 55,787 km (34,664 miles) in around 27 years. That puts him at a daily average of almost 6 km (~3.7 miles), so probably 1-2 hours of daily walking time. That's actually not bad considering all the delays, but quite a bit less than anticipated.
New estimate: He expects to be home "by 2026", let's say January. Based on that premise, his new estimate is that he will walk 2,213 km in ~4 months. That's a bit more than 17 km (~10.5 miles) per day. Relatively close to his original, comparatively uninformed estimate, funnily enough.
All that said, I don't think I'd have the willpower to see this through, especially considering all the setbacks. Mighty impressive.
Comment by 9dev 3 days ago
Comment by Ylpertnodi 3 days ago
But, but...stifling of innovation. Gdpr. Etc.
Comment by jve 3 days ago
This reminds me of an adventured died just a few months ago at age of 40 after suffering insult. He has crossed ocean on a rowboat and more.
https://boredofborders.com/adventures/
DeepL Translation of wiki:
Bardel's largest and most notable expeditions involve crossing oceans and traveling around the world without external assistance. On May 4, 2016, he and his traveling companion Gints Barkovskis set out to cross the Atlantic Ocean from Namibia to Brazil. After 142 days, they safely reached the coast of South America, becoming the first two-person crew to cross the Atlantic Ocean in a rowboat. [6] During the voyage, both men encountered serious health problems (vitamin deficiency, skin inflammation) and Barkovskis broke his ribs, but neither wanted to interrupt their journey, and the expedition ended successfully. [6]
After crossing the Atlantic, Bardelis continued his journey in South America and began a new stage in 2018. From Brazil, with the support of Gints Barkovskis, he traveled by tandem bicycle through South America to Lima, Peru, completing the approximately 5,400 km stage in 102 days. [7] Bardelis then set out alone in a rowboat to cross the Pacific Ocean in June 2018. He covered a distance of approximately 26,000 km from South America to Malaysia, spending a total of 715 days on the journey; with this achievement, he became the first person in the world to cross the Pacific Ocean from South America to Asia in a rowing boat. [7] During this sea expedition, he had to overcome several stormy periods and was forced to stop at islands, but in the end, Bardelis became known worldwide as the first ocean rower in this direction. [7]
Comment by fransje26 3 days ago
I did not understand what was meant with "suffering insult", so with the help of DeepL and his wikipedia page I could determine that he passed away due to a brain tumour.
An other link:
https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/19.11.2025-farewe...
Comment by K0balt 3 days ago
Comment by yolo3000 3 days ago
Comment by kalli 3 days ago
Comment by ourmandave 3 days ago
I suppose he could do other challenges like walk the same route the other direction or whatever.
Or maybe, SpaceX will drop a new DLC expansion Mars so he can keep playing.
Comment by ssalka 2 days ago
Comment by hybrid_study 3 days ago
Comment by doodlebugging 3 days ago
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plennie_L._Wingo
It was a challenging walk.
Comment by ritzaco 3 days ago
Also next time don't skip Africa xD
Comment by mewse-hn 2 days ago
Comment by machomaster 2 days ago
Comment by jwilber 2 days ago
Comment by machomaster 2 days ago
Perhaps this explains his motivation to just go on a ridiculous healing journey.
Comment by tasuki 3 days ago
Comment by bwv848 3 days ago
Comment by nly 3 days ago
If you're hungry or sick being by a road has advantages
Comment by bwv848 3 days ago
Comment by TurkishPoptart 2 days ago
Comment by quentindanjou 3 days ago
How does someone get the funds necessary to do something like this? I guess there are sponsors, but before getting known, is it just being wealthy?
Comment by gwbas1c 3 days ago
Comment by quentindanjou 3 days ago
I don't think we can say "The article explains this" while there is literally only one sentence in the article about it.
Comment by machomaster 2 days ago
At some poing he also got sponsors.
Comment by marcyb5st 2 days ago
Comment by stuff4ben 2 days ago
Comment by bncndn0956 3 days ago
Comment by lawn 3 days ago
On the other hand we have sycophants like yourself, spending your time to brown nose the richest man in the world.
Comment by bncndn0956 3 days ago
Comment by nrhrjrjrjtntbt 3 days ago
Comment by bncndn0956 3 days ago
Comment by HeckFeck 3 days ago
Comment by tomalbrc 3 days ago
Comment by imcritic 3 days ago
Comment by dmje 3 days ago
Comment by cwillu 3 days ago
Comment by dmje 3 days ago
Of course he may have been indoctrinated by 27 years away from home but I thought it was more likely that he’d been misquoted / adapted for the WP audience.
Anyway, it wasn’t a serious point, just a light hearted one. As you were ;-)
Comment by BrandoElFollito 1 day ago
People will go there willingly, then cry because they were arrested. The family would go to tv and the government is supposed to help them.
We should just leave them as they are. They are adults, decided that "do not go there" does not apply to them so bad luck.
The fact that we care incentives the authorities of these countries to use them as exchange money.
We in France have a few people in Iran or Algeria who travelled there to discover the extraordinary culture and views. Their choice, they now have Elle time to address these topics with the guards.
In contrast, this is so much different from the Belarusian oppositionist who was flying from Greece (IIRC) to a Baltic country and got hijacked as he was flying above Belarus. This one we forgot about.