He was trying to kayak from Australia to NZ. Apparently that makes him an adventurer. But what about his wife and 3 year-old son?
His wife appears supportive. They had been together for eight years. The crossing had been planned for ten, so it was not a matter of abandoning his family to satisfy some mid-life crisis.
Being an “adventurer” does not bring the same sort of comfortable feeling of value that engaging in dangerous careers such as firefighting or coal mining do. But he seems to have found ways to feed, clothe, and house his family and encourage his wife to join him on some treks. Reactions to whether it was “worth” it will be mixed, but I see no reason to condemn him.
I’m going to ask the really dumb and lazy questions:
How far is it from Australia to NZ?
And what is known about the water in between that makes it difficult?
(Links to more information would be great.)
It’s something like 1400 miles of wide, open ocean.
Pretty amazing story this one, initial reaction would be its impossible however he was only thirty nautical miles from finishing this journey. It appears he was out of the kayak and got hit by a wave, no life jacket and beacon and it was game over, no one will ever really know for sure.
As a husband, father and former adventurer (solo backpacking in Tibet), IMHO you should either be a father ***or ** * an adventurer.
Seems like he could have taken more precautions. Would it have cheapened the record if he had a speedboat within sight of him? On one hand it’s a tragedy whenever someone loses a life so young but on the other, he took a completely unnecessary risk.
Meh. That’s not an unreasonable point of view, but people routinely make choices which put them in harm’s way. Or even die unexpectedly in car accidents, etc. The child’s too young to make an informed decision, but it sure sounds to me like the wife knew the risks, and supported the dream.
My reaction may be colored by having watched American Experience on PBS last night. The episode in question focused on Apollo VIII–that’s the space flight that sent astronauts on their first orbit of the moon.
The astronauts had wives and children, who lived together (far from the astronauts), and worried together about the safety of their husbands. They knew that had their husbands not been astronauts, they probably would have been pilots in a war zone (Vietnam).
One of these women was interviewed, and said something about asking someone in control what the odds were that the men would return safely. He said fifty percent. This actually sounded to her like good odds. (And as we all know, they did return safely, and a few flights later, astronauts even made a moon landing).
Is it good to put oneself at risk when one is a parent, especially of a small child? Probably not. But the world doesn’t divide itself up neatly into “safe” and “risky, really, really risky”. I can’t imagine choosing to be the wife of someone like this kayaker, or like Steve Irwin, Crocodile Hunter, who made a career out of working with dangerous animals. But I’m not sure that it’s better to deny them the opprtunity to take chances and have children, and hope to keep adventuring their way through life; than it is to force a choice between the joys of parenting and adventuring.
I would agree. Sure the wife appears supportive to the public. Does she have a choice? And the child will live to regret his father’s decision.
There is adventuring and then there is adventuring. Paddling the open ocean by yourself has got to be a real drag and the only real satisfaction can be achieved at the completion which more than anything says to me that this guy had confidence issues and seeking glory. Selfish really.
Sort of reminds me of that grizzly guy in Alaska.
I’d say that there’s a difference, though, between being an adventurer in service of society (firefighter, soldier, astronaut, etc.) and being an adventurer for the sake of adventure. There’s the inspirational element of crossing a body of water, but that’s it. Inspiration doesn’t feed a family once the breadwinner gets himself killed. The family of firefighters, soldiers, etc. who are killed in the line of duty typically receive benefits. The risks they take are necessary for society to function.
It sounds like the guy didn’t take all the precautions he could have (like the speedboat idea). Not saying it was his fault that he got killed, but if he were my husband, I would have been like, “Look, hon. This is a major dream for the both of us, but you’ve got to assure me that getting to the other side is NOT the only thing you’ve got on your mind.” When you have a family, your risks become theirs too.
Sure, but as Eureka said, it doesn’t divide itself up into ‘safe’ and really, really risky’. Sure, this kayak adventure was at the very risky end of the scale, but there are plenty of things less risky that are still ‘adventure’. To say you can either be a dad or an adventurer is oversimplifying to the point of absurdity, at least as much as, say “You can be an adventurer - an inspiration to your kids, or you can be a boring dad”
I find “adventurers” to be self-indulgent and worthless. This is a particularly selfish act for someone who has young children. If you have that much time and money on your hands, find something more worthy to do with it.
Yes, there is a difference, but I think it’s more a matter of degree than it is a matter of “adventurer in service of society” being good (or OK or admirable or whatever) and “adventurer for the sake of adventure” being bad (or stupid or wasteful or whatever).
I think there is a huge difference between kayaking and going to the Moon.
The kayaking is just testing yourself. (There are plenty of ways to travel between Australia and New Zealand, and plenty of places to kayak.)
As others have said, he should have arranged safety and back-up as well.
The astronauts were showing what the human race is capable of.
It took thousands of people working together to reach the Moon. There were technological spin-offs and the achievement makes me proud.
The astronauts took risks in the cause of scientific advancement. They also were part of a team doing everything humanly possible to reduce their risk factor. That’s a little different than trying to do something inconsequential because nobody else has never done it, and even then not taking perfectly obvious precautions.
Not really any of my business I guess.
This seems to have become more of an opinion poll than an actual debate. Off to IMHO.
[ /Moderating ]
I admit that it is hard for me to feel sympathy towards thrill-seeking adventurers when they get killed or hurt. Comparisons to astronauts, cops, etc don’t cut it because these personnel are at least advancing a greater, selfless cause, even if if selfish reasons drove them to those jobs. Law enforcement. Scientific discovery. Search and rescue. These are services to the public. The thrill and danger is incidental to the service provided.
Climbing Mt. Everest in the winter, kayaking thousands of miles, running marathons in the desert…the sense of accomplishment that comes with carrying out these feats is wholly ego-driven and artificial. I could challenge myself by doing the mind-numbing task of turning 10,000 sheets of paper into 10,000 paper planes, and I would be advancing the cause of mankind the same degree as kayaking to NZ from Australia.
Doing dangerous, difficult things that serve no purpose beyond generating euphoric feelings of accomplishment is really not all that different than taking mind-alerting substances that can be lethal in high enough doses.
His wife presumably knew who she was marrying. It’s one thing to be widowed 20 years into a marriage because her husband decides to climb Mt. Hood because he’s having a midlife crisis; and quite another to marry a dude whose ambition is to cross the Tasman Sea in a kayak. She knew who she was marrying, as did Terri Irwin, et al.
Still feel bad for the family. Glad no one died trying to rescue him.
On another topic, we hail Christopher Columbus as a hero but he was one ballsy (and stupid) adventurer. It takes a lot of balls to board a ship and sail to an unmapped place. And then we have the Asians who sailed umpteen miles in an outrigger canoe and happened upon the Hawaiian Islands. Had the islands not been there, it’s another, what, 1500 miles or so to landfall? Holy crap.
Maybe. But their 3-year-old son didn’t get to make that choice.