Imagine your ancestors' access to the world outside of their own locality. They had stories mostly, but also books and maps (at different points in history) to learn from. Needless to say it was very limited.
Any thirst they had for knowledge that didn't exist in their locale was difficult to attain.
The important conclusion to take away from this going forward is that knowledge seekers had to leave their locale to see/learn for themselves.
Today...
Thirty-five percent of people worldwide access the internet (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm). You and I both know the infinite expanse of the internet; you can go anywhere and experience or learn almost anything. It is truly an amazing thing.
However, how does that effect our will to experience any of those things for ourselves?
Extrapolated, this lack of exposure means that less traveled people are lesser people. Don't read too much into this though, because although accurate, it is meaningless in most everyday situations. Quite offensive too.
Thirty-five percent of people worldwide access the internet (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm). You and I both know the infinite expanse of the internet; you can go anywhere and experience or learn almost anything. It is truly an amazing thing.
However, how does that effect our will to experience any of those things for ourselves?
Example...
If one is curious about Hawaii, one may simply ask google and you are transported there.
May we agree that a certain number of people given internet and curiosity about Hawaii and no access to the internet and another group with full access to the internet and the same curiosity, the group without internet would more likely contain more travelers to the destination? (It may need also be said that I'm implying a medium level of curiosity across the board, as a high level would possibly lead to as many members of each traveling - though of course this is not the point.)
The Difference...
Both groups gain similar knowledge but something is lost. Knowledge is still gained over the internet however the exposure is tertiary and hollow. Nowadays one may gain a more broad view of the place, but one would lose the impalpable direct knowledge obtained by visiting the place itself.
Reasoning... (Or why internet-knowledge is hollow)
Let me posit first that direct exposure creates people that are more whole and 3 dimensional compared to those that haven't. Travel implies interaction and true experience. Though obvious, this cannot be written off.
If one is curious about Hawaii, one may simply ask google and you are transported there.
May we agree that a certain number of people given internet and curiosity about Hawaii and no access to the internet and another group with full access to the internet and the same curiosity, the group without internet would more likely contain more travelers to the destination? (It may need also be said that I'm implying a medium level of curiosity across the board, as a high level would possibly lead to as many members of each traveling - though of course this is not the point.)
The Difference...
Both groups gain similar knowledge but something is lost. Knowledge is still gained over the internet however the exposure is tertiary and hollow. Nowadays one may gain a more broad view of the place, but one would lose the impalpable direct knowledge obtained by visiting the place itself.
Reasoning... (Or why internet-knowledge is hollow)
Let me posit first that direct exposure creates people that are more whole and 3 dimensional compared to those that haven't. Travel implies interaction and true experience. Though obvious, this cannot be written off.
Extrapolated, this lack of exposure means that less traveled people are lesser people. Don't read too much into this though, because although accurate, it is meaningless in most everyday situations. Quite offensive too.
Take away...
If you've always loved alternate places, people, cultures, anything that you have personal value for, go there and dive in - make it a priority instead of reading the news.
Also, have humility when discussing a topic that you have tertiary (second hand, internet) knowledge, with someone who has experienced things first hand.