I have lived in about 6 countries in my 40yrs and still felt that I have missed something worthwhile in those countries. The culture, landscape, food etc in the various countries are what I travel for. Not for a stamp in my passport.
I have lived in about 6 countries in my 40yrs and still felt that I have missed something worthwhile in those countries. The culture, landscape, food etc in the various countries are what I travel for. Not for a stamp in my passport.
By your standards, what does "living" somewhere even consist of? Staying there for a month? A year? 10 years? I've been places for a year and don't feel like I "live" there, and I don't see how arguing that he should have "lived" in 193 places is a valid criticism. Nor is asserting that he's only traveling for the stamp--he refers often to what he's learned about people and the human condition, and the stamp is simply a proxy for measuring his progress in this journey, since you really can't measure "how much have I learned while traveling?" until way after, as he says.
While it's not strictly necessary to visit every single country, I think what he's down is incredibly valuable and that people should travel even more for better cultural understanding.
I see it like reading the wikipedia page for 193 different programming languages Vs. actually learning how to program in a few of them.
Hopefully, within my kid's lifetime, the amount countries that he can travel to, quickly, is achievable. Imagine travelling to between Berlin and Singapore in a couple of hours.
You just discovered the key to happiness, my friend. Everyone gets to make up the rules to the game they play.
The beauty of it is that, if I am happy because I am better than a loser like you, and you are happy because you are better than a loser like me, we both win.
The only real losers are the fools (usually hyper-intelligente ones, on traditional IQ scales) over-analyzing and looking for deeper meaning where there is none.