Some problems with Barton's speech:
The example of Christopher Columbus does nothing to explain the value of "exploration for exploration's sake", which she is supposedly trying to promote. Return on investment and exploration aren't related because exploration is not an investment at all. If it were, it would be a foolish one since, as Barton says, 99 of 100 are, materially, failures.
The correlation of millionaire businessmen with gaudy "exploratory" activity may well be due to opportunity rather than any "inherent inquisitiveness" of "successful" people. Barton hints at this, but still tries to force an uninteresting and poorly founded conclusion.
Smartphones are not "a barrier between us and our ability to explore our world." The removal of ourselves from the natural world has been ongoing since long before cellphones were a thing. This exodus has left people helplessly ignorant; they view nature as alien and dangerous and toilsome and have come to believe that they have evolved beyond any need for it. The loss of domesticity and the modern disdain for manual labor mean that modern youths have little patience for or tolerance of the physical drudgery and pain that drive exploration. The loss of awareness of their place in the world means that they are in no position to appreciate the personal and spiritual benefits of exploration.
One good point:
The value of non-scientist explorers to science. Thousands of unlearned cavers recognize patterns and incongruities and do much of the field-work that forms the basis for specialized scientific learning.
The numbers and ages of caving club members, which Barton and A_Northerner and 2xw have mentioned, say little about the state of exploration. As Amy has indirectly rambled, caving does not equal exploration. Much caving by the old is, often necessarily, recreational and social, while many young cavers are little more than shallow glory-hounds.