
The Art of Travel (1872) - pmoriarty
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/14681/14681-h/14681-h.htm
======
ape4
Travel must have been a much bigger deal 100 years ago. You could not get
shots for the area you're going. It would be so slow. On the other hand, with
fewer travelers there wouldn't be areas over run by tourists.

~~~
monkeynotes
You can still go to very inaccessible areas that have little to no tourists.
Much of Canada is wilderness for one to dig a hole to put a roof over and fell
trees with one of your sharpened soft axe.

If you want a warmer clime you could venture up the Amazon river into the
forests and fend off Jaguars with your rifle loaded with bullets made in your
bullet mold.

Australia is pretty much empty too.

You can still roam wild places in the Steppes of Mongolia, wonder for weeks in
search of Shangri-La in the Himalayas without seeing anyone. There are many,
many places you can go travelling in the wilds.

Point being, there is a difference between touring and the kind of adventure
travel the author is talking about. Both touring and adventuring style of
travel existed in the 1800s and today. You can still do it! But I agree, it is
relatively easier to get to places, and medically one can be much more
prepared for disease and infection. That said, it is surprising how quickly
you might need to revert to the practices described in The Art of Travel once
you are outside of modern life. It's still the stone age when you are on your
own, injured, and in the middle of no where.

~~~
peterlk
> You can still roam wild places in the Steppes of Mongolia, wonder for weeks
> in search of Shangri-La in the Himalayas without seeing anyone.

But others will see you. I traveled through Mongolia with some locals, and one
of the things that was striking to me is how few people were there. At some
point, I mentioned this, and was laughed at by the locals. They were surprised
that I thought it was empty when there were plenty of people around. They
pointed out someone on a horse on a hill several ranges over. They said that
if we got closer they would make sure to stop us to ask why we were there.
There were also gers far away in other ranges. And everyone knew where
everyone else was. It was like their personal bubbles had a 2 km radius

------
bencollier49
The author:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton)

~~~
pimmen
A very complicated, fascinating man. On the one hand, statistics owes a lot to
this man. On the other hand, he was the man who popularized eugenics.

~~~
bencollier49
Having just briefly skimmed the article, I suspect he would have been
horrified at how things developed on that front throughout the 20th century.
He very specifically railed against "the nonsensical sentiment of the present
day, that goes under that name [pride of race]".

~~~
pimmen
I fear he would have a lot in common with the far-right, populist parties in
present day Europe though. In the same paragraph that contains your quote, you
also find this:

"Where the weak could find a welcome and a refuge in celibate monasteries or
sisterhoods, and lastly, where the better sort of emigrants and refugees from
other lands were invited and welcomed, and their descendants naturalised."

~~~
1996
Judged with our modern standard, most of people who lived more than 100 years
before are barbarians/far right/populists/whatever else you want to call them.

Guess how we will be judged in 100 year from now?

