Take a profound and distant journey. Call it Deep Travel, Immersive Travel, Slow Travel, or Vagabonding. Francis Tapon guides you to the intersection of travel, technology, and transformation. The podcast will compel you to go beyond your comfort zone.
The “if” is a cognitive security blanket I pull over my head so I can pretend that death — the only thing every single human being who has ever lived has accomplished — might somehow not apply to me. As though the universe looked at my particular assortment of questionable decisions and said, “This one, we keep.”
It will not say that. I am, biologically speaking, a disaster in slow motion. I have a weakening knee. I have eaten gas station sushi. Twice. I once stayed up until 3 am reading reviews for a blender I did not buy.
“If I die, give my record collection to someone who will actually appreciate it.”
Wrong.
“When I die, some stranger at an estate sale is going to pay $4 for a crate containing my entire personality.”
The “if” started innocently enough. Parents use it. “If something happens to me...” they say, then trail off.
But I’ve decided to stop. As an act of radical honesty, I am replacing every “if I die” with “when I die,” and I am inviting you to join me in this terrifying linguistic journey.
Let’s try
Before:“If I die, make sure the kids know I loved them.”
After:“When I die, make sure the kids know I loved them — and also that the router password is taped inside the drawer.”
Sym Blanchard & Joan Chan discuss the ups and downs of their parenting journey. They are both around 72 years old. Each had a boy and a girl with their exes.
Corporations are often seen as evil, selfish entities. We overlook that they allow billions of parents to feed, educate, and heal their kids. Jobs also generate taxes that allow governments to build roads, hospitals, and schools. Taxes fund welfare and protect national parks.
None of this would be possible (or at least easy) without corporations.
Don’t believe me? Consider humanity before corporations. Our global standard of living was far lower than today.
If you’re a backpacker, you’ve heard of Sawyer & probably used their filters.
In this show, Kurt Avery explains what he’s been doing for decades through his company. It might surprise even the most cynical of you out there. It might give you a bit of hope for humanity, too.
If this episode inspires you, consider giving to the .
Get full access to Francis Tapon at
300th Episode! Listen To The Most Popular Episode!
jeudi 4 juillet 2024 • Durée 46:29
To celebrate my 300th WanderLearn podcast episode, I'm sharing my most popular episode. If you like the nuanced way I tackle the controversial subject of hunting, be sure to go to the bottom of this page and follow the links to hear the other episodes I've done related to hunting.
In 2018, Brittany Hosmer Longoria was swept up in a social media firestorm with these trending hashtags:
#disgusting
#cuntress
#findThisBitch
#huntTheHunter
#Monstress
#immoral
#murderHer
#KillHer
#poacher
What had she done to induce such a vicious reaction?
The surprising answer is nothing that remarkable.
What she had done was to hunt a leopard in Namibia and take a photo of her holding the dead leopard. Here's why that's unremarkable:
First, she was not a poacher. She spent nearly $40,000 to get all the permits to legally hunt that old male leopard. I could understand that people would get worked up if she were a poacher. She was not. She did everything by the book. Nobody disagrees with that.
Second, she didn't post the photo on Instagram. She submitted it to the Safari Club International (SCI) when they solicited photos that exhibited a "hunting heritage."
She uploaded the photo to SCI's private server. SCI would evaluate these photos. But before they could, an animal activist got a hold of the photo and released it to the public.
In other words, it's not like Brittany illegally shot a leopard and then bragged about it.
On the contrary, she went through all the legal steps and took a pretty standard post-hunt photo. This sort of thing happens thousands of times every day, so what Brittany did was thoroughly unremarkable.
Listen to this podcast and tell me your thoughts in the comments below.Here is a funny and educational video about the subjectWhat about Green Hunts?BONUS #1: Listen to my wife and I debate Brittany Longoria and hunting. BONUS #2: A year after this interview, I followed up with Longoria for a second interview.BONUS #3: If you found this podcast intriguing and profound, listen to my podcast with the Director of Conservation at Safari Club International.More infoAffiliate links Get full access to Francis Tapon at
He's Seen Most of Countries in Less Than a Year - Michael Zervos
jeudi 27 juin 2024 • Durée 19:08
I interviewed Michael Zervos in Cote d'Ivoire a few months ago. He was 10% done with his every-country-speed tour.
I interviewed him today, June 27, when he's halfway done!
The book provides a fresh and original perspective on this historical event, as the
author is a mathematician who has applied modern analysis techniques to the available evidence. Dr. Edwards has thoroughly researched the contemporary accounts, letters, and artifacts related to the climb and has identified inconsistencies in previous narratives.
The book's release coincides with the 100th anniversary of Mallory and Irvine's fateful expedition and offers unique insights. Mountaineering experts Jochen Hemmleb and Thom Dharma Pollard have praised its potential to shed new light on whether Mallory and Irvine were the first to conquer Everest. This unique perspective is sure to enlighten the audience.
Mallory picked a strong, young, inexperienced climbing partner, Andrew Irvine, to push to the summit.
SPOILER #1: Nobody knows if either one of them made it. And this book doesn't offer a definitive answer either.
However, this book will enthrall you if you want to learn what the most meticulous researcher has discovered.
For example, Edwards spends pages examining everything about the mysterious ice ax found high on the mountain.
SPOILER #2: The ax is almost certainly Irvine's or Malory's, but we don't know which one. The author concludes that it was placed there and didn't tumble or drop there accidentally.
More infoAffiliate links Get full access to Francis Tapon at
Surviving a Plane Crash That Killed the Pilot
vendredi 24 mai 2024 • Durée 22:06
Glen Van Peski sat in the co-pilot seat of a tiny plane that crashed, killing the pilot next to him. What happened?
How did Glen and all the other passengers survive with minor or moderate injuries?
We talk a lot about death in this episode, including how Glen's mom and son died.
Glen Van Peski is a civil engineer who used his skills to engineer the lightest backpacking gear in the Solar System. Glen is the founder of Gossamer Gear.
Glen Van Peski, founder of Gossamer Gear, is known for his legendary contributions to the backpacking community. A native Californian, Van Peski grew up in the western outdoors, and when his oldest son joined Scouts, he led the troop’s backpacking program. Through those experiences, he became intrigued by lightweight backpacking. He started sewing his gear and eventually started his own company, manufacturing ultralight backpacking equipment. Glen and his company have been featured in Backpacker, Outside, National Geographic Adventure magazines, and the New York Times.Van Peski is an internationally sought-after speaker known for his inspiring, humorous, and information-packed presentations. He has hiked most of the Pacific Crest Trail, wandered the backcountry in Japan and Europe, and bike-packed on the Great Divide. He lives in Bend, Oregon, with Francie, his wife of over forty years, and is the father of two grown sons.More infoAffiliate links Get full access to Francis Tapon at
Therefore, it's a bit hard to understand why she, out of all the legal hunters who post photos of their trophies, would get targeted by social media harshly.
I met with her in 2019 at the SCI conference to talk with Brittany.
Although I met her briefly, she's clearly a shy and humble person. Introverts dislike the spotlight. I commend her for her courage in facing the spotlight to dispel some myths and misunderstandings about hunting.
I warned her that I would hit her hard with tough and uncomfortable questions, which a journalist must do to capture all sides of a story. Indeed, you'll hear that at one point in the interview, she nearly shuts down, seemingly exhausted by my barrage of questions.
As always, she kept her cool and composure, which her hysterical enemies often do not. I commend Brittany.
Moreover, I wanted to give her a chance to answer some thought-provoking and provocative questions that people who dislike hunting may have.
Meanwhile, people who hate hunting should listen to her pro-hunting arguments. Many people who have a knee-jerk adverse reaction to hunting have never given much thought to it. Ignorance leads to misunderstandings.
So if you hate hunting, listen to this podcast. I don't expect to convert you. In fact, I am not even trying to convert anyone to anything. I just like to promote listening and the calm exchange of ideas.
I am a part-time vegan (I only eat animals when I'm traveling or when I'm a guest at someone's house). So I'm not a hunter. However, I believe many people who disapprove of hunting don't see the nuance in this complex subject. I don't claim to be an expert. I just like to listen and learn. I hope you do too. If so, share this episode and comment below.
If you want to leave a comment, here's a tip: the less emotional and savage your comment is, the more convincing it will be. Scream and swear often if you want to turn people off from your argument. I know, this is the Internet, so we're all supposed to get outraged about everything. But please try to act like a grown-up.
The hardest question I didn't ask Britt Longoria during the podcast is why she doesn't do Green Hunts. I didn't ask that question because I didn't think about it, but a couple of people asked me after the interview.
A Green Hunt is when you shoot an animal with a tranquilizer instead of deadly ammunition.
After the podcast, I asked Britt if she could answer the question. She wrote her response and here are the highlights of what she said.
Green Hunts are much cheaper than normal hunts. Killing one white rhino costs $60,000 versus $7,500 for a Green Hunt of the white rhino.
She wrote, "Although a green hunt would be an exciting adventure, there is a lack of hunting fulfillment and intent, which is hard to describe to people who have not experienced the full cycle of a hunt."
Britt concludes, "During a green hunt, there is a whole entourage of people participating, rather than the meditative qualities of a private or solo hunt. The intent of a green hunt would be different as well for science, sport, or entertainment; rather than the profoundly emotive process that may or may not end in harvest after a traditional hunt. I support both practices; however, I would not be able to compare the two experiences as the same."
Britt hasn't tried a green hunt, so I think she should try before she concludes that they're a big difference between the two. She might learn that the difference isn't as big as she theorized.
And even if she does feel that there's a big difference, not all hunters may agree with her.
Britt observes that Green Hunts have a bigger entourage than a normal hunt. I could see how that could be annoying or distracting.
Still, I imagine there is a HUGE difference between hunting ALONE and hunting with a buddy.
In other words, if you graph the intensity of the hunting experience with # of hunters on the X-axis and intensity on the Y-axis, you would get an asymptotic line that flattens out when you have 5+ hunters.
In regular hunts, you usually have an entourage of at least three (driver, guide/PH, and hunter). You often have another hunting buddy, a skinner, or an armed government official. So you have 3-6 folks on a traditional hunt.
Let's say you have twice that on a green hunt.
I've never been on either hunt, but I imagine there's not THAT much of a difference between having 5 or 10 folks on your hunt. But it must be MUCH different whether you are ALONE versus having one buddy. And there's a pretty big difference going from 2 hunters versus 3-4 hunters. That's why I say the graph is an asymptote.
What I love about this book is that Edwards lets the evidence speak. Although he speculates, he admits when he's speculating to let the reader reach their conclusion.
After reading this excellent book and interviewing the author, here's my best guess as to what happened:
Mallory probably reached the summit late in the afternoon, forcing him to descend at night. When investigators found his corpse in 1999, Mallory's sunglasses were in his pocket, indicating he descended at night. He ran out of oxygen, which sapped his strength and heat just when he needed to stay warm at nightfall. He had few clothes compared to modern climbers. Without oxygen, he got disoriented and wobbly. His judgment worsened. One slip was all it took to break his leg and slide down to his resting spot, where he was found decades later.
This hypothesis is my speculation, not the book's.
Get the book, and judge for yourself.
WARNING: This book may bore people with only a passing interest in this topic.
VERDICT: 5 out of 5 stars!
To leave an anonymous voicemail that I could use on the podcast, go to SpeakPipe.com/FTapon
You can post comments, ask questions, and sign up for my newsletter at http://wanderlearn.com.
If you like this podcast, subscribe and share!
On social media, my username is always FTapon. Connect with me on:
Découvrez des podcasts liées à WanderLearn: Travel to Transform Your Mind & Life. Explorez des podcasts avec des thèmes, sujets, et formats similaires. Ces similarités sont calculées grâce à des données tangibles, pas d'extrapolations !
