3 ms·

I would suggest that there is some hindsight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight) creeping in to your statement. Usi

I would suggest that there is some hindsight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight) creeping in to your statement. Using your example of the new world, explorers had to at least deal with ocean voyages, new diseases, and possibly dangerous flora and fauna. All of these dangers were unknown until they were known. In the same vein, the dangers of a "vastly different atmosphere" were unknown, but are now know via experiments in deep sea diving, not to mention going to the moon. Death via exploration in a new environment (ocean, deep earth, space, etc) is certainly not a new risk. Looking back from this point in time in history, it is easy to suggest that those risks were minimal.

dinkumthinkum 14y ago
No there is no hindsight, it's just obvious. Your examples are not very good comparisons. We can't breath Martian air, temperatures are extreme, radiation, etc, etc. This is vastly different from "Oh, that's a strange plant" or scurvy or whatever you're coming up with. Deep ocean exploration is an interesting point, we haven't really done much of that and I promise you Hernando Cortez didn't either. The fact is, comparison to early explorers is misplaced, at least as put in what I responded to. I mean it's sort of funny. The explorers were going places that humans already lives. The inhabitants were more impacted than the explorers. I can poke holes in this all day. No hindsight, just common sense. :)