-
Also, all the "risky" chat is rather nonsense to me.. It might get risky, it will get risky, but there isn't such a place that is risky per se.
So a region affected by sectarian violence, gang activity, political unrest, civil war, or terrorism would not be a risky place per se?
Lolo-
I would say riskier than places without it.
But still people find a way of living there as well, so there ultimately is a way of visiting/crossing even such places, just with more awareness than other places.
I am not saying risk doesn't exist, but that it shouldn't refrain people from travelling to those locations, being it South Sudan, Pakistan, North Korea, Darien Gap or Venezuela just to name a few.
Especially when you are being told off by someone that has no better experience about such place than having googled something on the internet.
-
London ain't all that bad yet. We're only running with 3 out of 5 of those risks.
giofox
hippy
Any update on this @greeno?
I found myself thinking about this quite often in the past weeks, especially when going to work interviews.
Also, all the "risky" chat is rather nonsense to me.. It might get risky, it will get risky, but there isn't such a place that is risky per se.
Now the moral side of things is more interesting (@fizzy.bleach). But it triggers a much bigger discussion imho. As privileged people, with resources, education and skills, living in the 1st world, we owe it to the less fortunate one not to waste our skills and capabilities but just saying fuck it and living a selfish life. Yet we live in a society that thrives on selfish useless consumerism, so the way I see it, there is much more good in selfishly travelling by bike across poorer countries, than working 9-5 in an office to afford a place with higher rent or the latest phone or gadget. Although I don't have a final answer to this dichotomy either, I'd be really keen to expand the subject, maybe over a few beers.