Adventures with purpose - Ripley Davenport walking across Mongolia

21 Comments

• 

  On 11th June 2010 R Martin said:

  Dear Editor:
  Fawning over Mr. Davenport does you and your publication little credit. How about a bit of balance, like addressing the obvious question (which any Mongol would ask) WHY? Or how about calling this what it is, a "colonial adventure" in which a wealthy (relative to the local culture), time on his hands "adventurer" comes to Mongolia and actively eschews contact with the people and culture in order to make himself the central figure in a heroic effort to do something that has no purpose other than being a "first". Please help your readers. Exactly HOW does engaging in an activity that the locals would find certifiably insane and pointless then "raise awareness about human and environmental sustainability and act with strong consideration for the environmental; social and interpersonal impact of one's actions"? And how does a SOLO event which in which the author actively avoids any mention of meeting people along the way (in his breathless Twitter and Blog accounts of the trials and tribulations, hence "look at me")then form the basis of "a documentary film, book and educational curriculum that will focus on TEAMWORK and the spirit of adventure"?. team? what team?
  
  The era of these self centered "first for the sake of something first" adventures should be dead and gone. Where are the adventurers who imagine an event which works at building real bridges between cultures and are grounded in humility instead of self promotion for book and lecture tours? I suggest that as an "editor" you consider on the one hand, Mr. Davenport's escapade and on the other the "adventures" of someone like Greg Mortenson at Central Asia Institute. And then apply the insight you gain to your further adventures in editing and bring some discrimination to what you edit. That's the job of an "editor".
  

• 

  On 11th June 2010 François said:

  it's a little bit true but adventure is more stronger

• 

  On 12th June 2010 c s said:

  Dear Martin,
  
  You are right to ask these questions, why is ripley out there, why is he trekking accross mongolia. But then in so many ways you are wrong. what on earth is colonial adventure? do you even know what colonial means?
  
  In the past, adventure has been about going to places where you are uncomfortable and biting through it, immersing yourself in your environment to learn about the place you are in. To conquer all the barriers which those explorers could not have anticipated in the countries where they were from. Getting to a destination and doing whatever it takes.
  
  Just as if a Mongolian Nomad decided to trek in Denmark that would be considered adventure, Ripley is going to Mongolia, to a place he and in fact, most people from europe know very little about, and is going to explore, conquer, and adventure there.
  
  Along the way, he has decided to help all these great causes... not because he plans to stumble accross children and hand them some cash to help their lives, not to be more environmentally friendly (but please, please tell me what is 'unsustainable' about one man surviving 100 days + on nature only in one of the most hostile environments in the world?!?), but because he would like to use the publicity of the walk to help these causes so when you come along and read the article and i read the article, we understand why he is doing this, that it is not just a 'colonial adventure' (?!?)...
  
  And then your comment about 'teamwork', how naive really... Maybe you are not an explorer, but it takes more than one man to undertake an expedition like this, in fact, he had a whole team of wonderful people helping pave his way along this adventure. Planning this trip took him 3 years of his life and finances and personal time. Three years where this trip has sucked all the juice out of him financially, and you dare comment on him being wealthy, and try to justify it compared to the local culture. Who are you? where do you live if not in a wester country yourself where the same wealth gape exists! that comment could be made about any explorer who visits any country, that is almost always the case, there is always a wealth gap... and furthermore, even though there is a wealth gap, it is not as if the mongolians are unhappy. Please do not be so pitiful.
  
  I am 15 years old and Ripley has inspired me to go further, to do more, and everyday I anticipate with excitement his latest blog and news, because in my eyes, he DEFINES the true adventurer.
  
  There will always be the naysayers and the sceptics, people such as yourselves who sit behind your computer with nothing better to do - in the words of Ripley:
  
  "People are quick to judge and throw in their views from the comfort of their armchair. It all looks so different from when you’re sitting at home watching it unfold."
  
  All i can say to you, on behalf of Ripley, the adventures with a purpose editor who has done a fine job selecting this article is - get off your butt and get on this blog for an adventure yourself!
  
  yours hopefully,
  
  c

• 

  On 14th June 2010 Alex said:

  Hi C, Francois + R Martin,
  
  thanks very much for your comments and passion - great to have you involved.
  
  In response, R Martin, you are right to voice those opinions, they are thoughts that crossed our minds in choosing the article too, and they have been taken on board.
  
  This column was set up for precisely for the reason you mention: 'The era of these self centred "first for the sake of something first" adventures should be dead and gone.' That is however exactly why we feel expeditions like Ripley's are so important. Yes, of course there is going to be an element of self fulfilment in his motivation to complete the expedition. This is one vital instinct which had driven every explorer and adventurer to new limits (be they Eastern or western), and for better or worse has been a driving force in the development of human history. What is important however is that his expedition goes beyond that. Humans will always be captivated by adventures and expeditions like this, and Ripley seeks to use that interest to engage people in important issues, raise funds for charities doing invaluable work, and inspire and encourage other young people, like c s perhaps, to go out and build on this platform. May they go further still and build adventures that more closely reflect your vision of an 'adventure with a purpose'.
  
  That is the unique value and potential that adventure and adventurers are able to bring to this world - inspiration, passion, belief and determination that the impossible can be made possible. Never underestimate the importance of adventures like this in inspiring positive change, and we shall continue to write about those who also share that belief and mission, alongside stories from people like Greg Mortenson, who are also doing incredible things off the back of inspiration drawn from their own expeditions (and no doubt those of others too).
  
  That is our feelings anyway. Keep your comments coming, debate is the only way forwards.
  
  To much better adventures.
  
  Alex
  

• 

  On 14th June 2010 Milda said:

  Hi
  
  I for one totally admire Ripley for what he is doing as I could never do it.
  Nearly 1000 fans on facebook can't be a bad thing and I suppose we all choose our own path on how we seek money and happiness.
  He's out there while we debate and banter about him. How sad we are!
  
  It's just noble that Ripley is also giving back to charities and continues to inspire people.
  My 11 year old son is totally overwhelmed by Ripley and has joined local adventure scouts.
  
  Regards
  Milda
  

• 

  On 28th June 2010 Tim Moss said:

  Hi Alex et al
  
  I enjoyed reading your piece on a genuinely tough expedition as well as all of the feedback on it.
  
  It's clear that Ripley has got some well thought out objectives beyond going out there just for fun and I think that's to be commended.
  
  But, equally, if there is a point to be taken from R Martin's comments then perhaps it's that all too often people make lofty claims about their expedition's objectives when really they are just doing something because it's what they want to do (I include ALL of my own adventures in this category).
  
  I don't think this detracts in the slightest from the good that can come from them – e.g. inspiring others (like young C; you write with twice the clarity I do yet at half my age!) – and I think it's great that expeditions often aspire to do more (e.g. support charities) but, if you exaggerate the peripheral goals of your expedition to make it sound grander than it really is then you risk undermining and/or angering those who are genuinely working in the fields you loosely support.
  
  Instead, I would suggest, we should just go out there, have fun and be honest about it, and the good will come in due course.
  
  All the best,
  Tim Moss
  The Next Challenge

• 

  On 28th June 2010 Alex Hibbert said:

  No expedition deserves to be belittled or decried, especially by anonymous online commentators, unless it clearly claims to do or be something it is not.
  
  Some of the wording in Ripley's press pack may need a tweak or two, but the goals are in the best spirit of adventure.
  
  Armchair explorers bore me.
  
  Alex Hibbert
  www.alexhibbert.com

• 

  On 28th June 2010 Dominic Hall said:

  Some strong opinions on a very very interesting topic - perhaps this in its own right gives some justification to Ripley's adventures. Whilst I understand very much the thoughts in the opening comment here - if these expeditions provoke discussion and engagement in the natural world then that has to be a good thing. Thanks Alex for hosting such a good debate...!
  
  Dom Hall
  Fieldskills

• 

  On 28th June 2010 Alex said:

  Thanks all for your comments. Tim, in short, I couldn't agree more. Glad to see some interesting and thought provoking comments coming from the article - as you say Dom, that can only be a good thing. Next month in the e-mag we are going to be writing about some guys setting off very explicitly to conserve through exploration. Will be interested to hear your thoughts on that one too.
  
  Cheers
  
  Alex

• 

  On 28th June 2010 Mark Kalch said:

  I hate claims of first this and biggest, longest that as much or more than most people. I am also over people aligning themselves with causes as a convenient cover for their adventures. But, adventures do not have to be for any reason. Why should they be justified? So long as no false claims are made of their purpose or aims, why in the hell does anyone have to justify any undertaking to anyone? Is a doctor working away for charity? To bridge some sort of gap between rich and poor? What about a hedge fund manager? A football player? The bus driver? You, R Martin? Who gives a toss? All these folk dying slowly on their sofas demanding that other people explain themselves. To who? By what right? For f**k's sake! Greg Mortenson is an amazing bloke who has done some awesome good in this world but you are kidding yourself if he started climbing for any other reason than just for fun! Relax R Martin, it's much more fun.

• 

  On 28th June 2010 Mark Kalch said:

  Alex, just saw you comment. Spot on and just brilliant!

• 

  On 29th June 2010 R Martin said:

  Glad, indeed, to see some spirited discussion of the subject of "personal adventures". Just to set the record straight, I'm not “dying slowly on my sofa". Over the course of 60 years I have hiked, climbed, kayaked, rafted, sea kayaked, trekked, canyoneered (before it was a term), mountain biked, dived, sailed etc. both domestically and internationally and I have earned a good living at it. I think am in as much a position as anyone to comment on "professional adventuring".
  
  Let's draw a distinction between those who adventure for the purpose of creating a personality centric occupation like Mr. Davenport (and perhaps Mr. Hibbert and Mr. Kalch) and those whose choice is to engage in challenging, physical, culturally complicated "work" because they care for some larger issue than personal glory. I'm not saying it is wrong to adventure in order to develop a career with films, books, speaking tours, etc. I'm just saying be honest that that is what you are doing and don't feed yourself and others this pap about doing it for various charities and the betterment of mankind. If you get anything out of a true adventure, it should be the ability to live with the honest reality of who you are and what motivates you.
  
  As to "colonial adventure", I apologize for not explaining what seemed to me a self evident phrase. When you treat a landscape and a culture as a romantic backdrop to your personal quest, that's a "colonial adventure". When you ignore the people on the landscape... that is a "colonial adventure". (After all, acknowledging that you are regularly meeting local people just passing by during their normal lives, sort of takes the "edge" of all the "grueling harshness" that is a necessary ingredient of the adventure.
  
  Mr. Davenport could have envisioned an adventure that included local people, celebrated centuries old traditions of hospitality, taught some actual individuals (as opposed to some vague notion of "youth") some real skills and exposed them to new perspectives. And since I’m being a curmudgeon I have to say that his blog posts are boring. He’s crossed a variety of roads and the Trans-Siberian railroad, he’s skirted if not gone through small towns and passed dozens of ails (ger encampments) along the way, yet not a mention of any of that. All we here about are his tortured struggles and longing for a cold beer. How about some comments on the geology, history, flora.. or did he bother to read up on any of that? If he can carry the electronics that allow us to know, breathless minute to breathless minute, his decision process on awarding himself a candy bar, he could carry everything ever written about Mongolia on a Kindle. (I bet they would have donated one). But that wouldn't fit the ultimate goal of being the "first for first sake" and it being all about Ripley. From all angles (including self marketing) I think going for a "first" is bad strategy. As soon as someone walks ten feet further than you, the hook in your promotional material is out of date. But an adventure that includes other people and accomplishes something that can't be so easily knocked out of "first" place has marketing legs.
  
  
  I would suggest that just because an “adventure” can attract some clothing sponsors doesn’t mean it isn’t pointless. If it does not have a beneficial legacy long after it’s over, it was self indulgent fun. Mr. Davenport's feat, in which he alone defines the parameters of success, will fade from memory in the blink of an eye.
  
  I have nothing against Mr. Davenport, he’s probably a swell guy. His adventure caught my eye because I know a lot about Mongolia.
  
  To “c”: I hope you have a fine career as an “adventurer” and that you are, in fact, inspired. One talent you will need to develop is discernment so that you don’t swallow as fact every statement and every justification you read on a self-published website. “Lose discrimination and you miss life’s only purpose” Bhagavad Gita
  
  To the rest of you “proventurers” try to keep it real, and consider my humble suggestion that the horizons of adventure are found where culture and the landscape meld. The physical challenge thing is so yesterday; tomorrow is for those who shape new paradigms of human understanding.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• 

  On 3rd July 2010 Tom Allen said:

  Personality-centric adventurers in my experience are rarely chasing personal glory. In today's West you don't sell anything without a brand (whether it's to sponsors, media, consumers, whatever), and so if the best brand a 'proventurer' can come up with is him/herself, then it's probably good marketing, rather than a big ego, that drives it. Most expeditioners I've met have been amongst the most humble of people.
  
  R Martin - you do have a point, of course, that Davenport is essentially creating something out of nothing by dragging 90 days of food behind him, when one could walk across Mongolia with a day-pack and eat and sleep in a ger every night, if one so desired (though that's not without ethical issues either). But he's chosen to push the limits of human endurance, not to have a jolly at the expense of Mongolian traditional hospitality. My only criticism is that many may come away from reading about his trip with a pretty warped idea of what the place is actually like, and I do agree that it's worth addressing this. I'm not a fan of misrepresentation; with my own travel/adventure writing I try my hardest to break down common misconceptions about the world that hype and headlines generate. Mr Kalch's most recent trip - walking across Iran - was very much in this vein as well.
  
  As for the physical challenge being "so yesterday", maybe for you it is, but the variety of human expression and opinion is what makes life interesting, wouldn't you say? Isn't there a place for both?

• 

  On 3rd July 2010 R Martin said:

  Dear Tom, I don't disagree with your first paragraph. My point is just "be honest" about why you are doing what you are doing.
  
  As to backpacking across Mongolia, it's true that if you don't bring something to the exchange, then it's just free loading. It happens all the time with "backpackers" who look down on "tourists" and assume that they are somehow more pure in their appreciation of local culture, while they eat the nomads out of house and ger. There is a mistaken notion about nomadic hospitality. It's not a "free lunch" for whomever wanders by. First and foremost, you provide news which is the community binding agent. If you stayed more than a few hours, you would help with chores, tell interesting stories, share YOUR resources (tobacco, reading material, etc.). But MOST importantly, you will offer hospitality at some point that evens the scales, perhaps not to the exact same person, but it is like a community bank of support. The "backpacker" is never going to play the traditional role in that circle of interconnectedness. (How many times would Mongols knock on your flat door in Manchester or Tel Aviv before peoples started to freak out?)
  
  Yes, of course there is a place for both physical challenge and cultural challenge. It's a matter of emphasis I would say. It's a given that there are plenty of young, fit, time-on-their-hands Westerners ready to go adventuring. It's also a given that there is an entire outdoor equipment industry that feeds into (often with little reflection) the advertising paradigm of walking logos. The rarer commodity is someone who adventures outside the "firstest with the raddest" mentality. Historically, adventurers where answering geographical questions. That was the "hook" for the public. The physical travail and the innovations in gear and technology that were driven by the demands of the task were sidelights, often compelling stories in and of themselves, but sidelights none the less to the larger goal.
  
  It just seems a shame to me that young adventurers seem stuck on "firsts" and aren't finding adventures which reflect the changing paradigms in culture, economics and science which are so rapidly changing the world.

• 

  On 3rd July 2010 Mark Kalch said:

  R Martin, you raise some excellent points!

• 

  On 4th July 2010 Thomas Andersen said:

  Young adventurers?
  I believe Mr. Davenport is 40 years old and completed several expeditions since 1998, before that he served in the British Military.
  I met him briefly, very briefly, and he's actually very quiet and polite.
  The work he does for childrens' charities is outstanding.
  Mongolia, for Davenport, is about raising funds and awareness for education and schools in Mongolia as well as his own personal reasons, which warrant no explanation to R. Martin or anyone.
  
  R Martin seems to have a serious problem with Mr. Davenport, as do many other here and many seem to enjoy ripping him to pieces.
  
  His blogs are boring? So don't read them. Simple really!
  
  I know that Mr. Davenport's next desert expedition in 2011 is at the other end of the spectrum but I doubt he's doing that to win favours with R. Martin.
  
  R. Martin knows nothing of Mr. Davenport except what he wants to read.
  Hibbert & Kalch, understandably share slightly different views but they understand Mr. Davenport, enough to let him be and - I like to think - maybe enjoy his expedition in some small way.
  
  Tom

• 

  On 4th July 2010 Tom Allen said:

  R Martin - agreed on all fronts. Having spent the last 2 months cycling in the country it's very clear what the hospitality tradition evolved for. It's also sad to see how it's come to be abused by travellers. Mind you, with guidebooks to Mongolia promoting 'ger-to-ger' backpacking, advertising the hospitality as a tourist attraction, what do you expect?

• 

  On 4th July 2010 R Martin said:

  Thomas Anderson:
  Let's all stipulate that Mr. Davenport is quiet, polite, well groomed, a faithful, loving husband, father and thoughtful son. Now that's done, would you like to address the points I raised (none of which were impeachments of his personality traits).
  Mr. Davenport's walk is a purposefully public event; he promotes it as such. In that vein I have tried to read everything available on the net about him in an effort to better understand his "Adventure with a Purpose". There are big gaps in my understanding that you can perhaps fill. Just exactly what kind of funds has he raised for education and schools in Mongolia? By what mechanism, how much money exactly, exactly what schools? What will be done with the money or is it enough just to hand it to the headmaster and call it good? What are the needs of the students and teachers? How will donors know that this money does what it was meant for? What is the mechanism for follow up? These are the kinds of questions that determine whether the "charity" is just a ruse for respectability or a serious commitment. Given that Mr. Davenport's website is chock full of things about him and his sponsors, a short blurb answering the questions above would seem not too much to ask. I'll be happy to have my sources there verify your information.
  It seems to me that the first attribute necessary for a public display of adventuring is to have a reasonably thick skin, yet raising valid issues about the event is suddenly "ripping to pieces". Or do modern adventurers expect to live in a circle of back-patting "I'm ok, you're ok" admirers?
  
  If a discussion like this keeps Mr. Davenport from enjoying his expedition, then his project and he are more vapid than I suspected. This whole website is about "Adventures with Purpose" so it seems fair to me to question the purpose, n'cest pas?
  
  Finally, I would love to know what an expedition at the "other end of the spectrum" would be. Will he walk the shortest distance, unsupported, accompanied by 1000 friends? ;-)

• 

  On 5th July 2010 Thomas Andersen said:

  R. Martin,
  
  As I said, I met him briefly so I cannot answer your questions that you are so deeply concerned about and have no need to investigate every part of Davenport's life.
  
  You said: Finally, I would love to know what an expedition at the "other end of the spectrum" would be. Will he walk the shortest distance, unsupported, accompanied by 1000 friends? ;-)
  
  Me: Why don't you ask your sources there to verify this and find out?
  
  You said: Just exactly what kind of funds has he raised for education and schools in Mongolia? By what mechanism, how much money exactly, exactly what schools? What will be done with the money or is it enough just to hand it to the headmaster and call it good? What are the needs of the students and teachers? How will donors know that this money does what it was meant for? What is the mechanism for follow up?
  
  Me: In the words of M. Kalch: why in the hell does anyone have to justify any undertaking to anyone? Is a doctor working away for charity? To bridge some sort of gap between rich and poor? What about a hedge fund manager? A football player? The bus driver? You, R Martin? Who gives a toss? All these folk dying slowly on their sofas demanding that other people explain themselves. To who? By what right? For f**k's sake!
  
  My thoughts exactly.
  I have nothing more to comment on this subject or this article.
  
  Good luck R. Martin.
  
  Thomas

• 

  On 9th July 2010 Alex said:

  More interesting comments have left us with a lot of food for thought. Thanks. Let's open the question then. What would you count as an adventure with purpose? Is it even important? Have started a new thread on this, and look forward to your comments and examples.

• 

  On 7th May 2011 rob said:

  well done to mr ripley,and to those arm chair people,you know its vital we have people in this world to try and be the first it inspires others to reach within and find there own strength and spirit.and in the process help by word action and deed ,so as a first time adventure myself naturally i connect with ripley and can only wish him well.