Most of those names strike me as particularly affluent or benefitting from a rich sponsor. Which does not really contradict the original point that majority of the population were focused on survival.
Thinking in peace and quiet was indeed a luxury in past times.
That doesn't mean there isn't a long tradition of walking if you needed to think. And that was the core point of OP - not that the majority was focused on survival, but that supposedly thinking and walking are a new relationship, previously impossible. And they really aren't. (Even as a subsistence farmer, you occasionally have to think, and doing that during a walk is a pretty common approach)
> supposedly thinking and walking are a new relationship, previously impossible
Not quite, the relationship between walking and thinking is more salient now. Not previously impossible.
Note OP cites examples of walking that are all practical. Poetically OP states this as a way to "find" answers. That element of finding is no longer a necessity like it used, but arguably taking the time and the method are still important.
Quoting OP: " Walking is what our ancestors did, to go into "finding" modus. Find a route to water, find prey, find adversaries to find you and find out. Or at least find the way home."
My points are nuanced and being strawmanned.
(1) energy scarcity makes walking for leisure less attractive. Can't just pound a bag of chips.
(2) because of the necessity to be active, the time to think and be still was more baked into human lifestyle. Further making explicit intention to do nothing, quietly walk less needed.
(3) our current lifestyle tends to be the opposite of (1) & (2). We can readily get cookies (high calorie foods) and don't have movement baked in.
(4) humans are evolved for (1) & (2). That we are at (3), and are not adapted for that lifestyle, underscores why leisure walks would be more important now than ever before.
