Welcome to the TravelPod forums

[starlagurl]

Found this on Brave New Traveler again. They've got some interesting articles lately:
http://www.bravenewtraveler.com/2008/12/29...l-is-unethical/

1. Travel damages the environment.
2. Travel commercializes a nation’s greatest monuments.
3. Travel turns culture into a commodity.
4. Travel creates foreign dependence and promotes fragile economies.
5. Travel promotes crime.
6. Long-term travel promotes broadly reaching but shallow experience in the traveler.

Do you agree? Check out the arguments on the website, then argue your points.

[kitkatgo]

I think the author needs to spend more time thinking of ways to lessen the impact of travel rather than playing devil's advocate.

[ScottWoz]

Sounds to me like the author eats big bags of sour grapes. These aren't words of a wholesome traveller, these are words of someone who's scared to step outside their comfort zone. This is the all too familiar case of 'theory' wishing it could be 'practice' for a day. A dose of real cultural integration would soon sort out this rubbish. Bitterness achieves nothing, only self-destruction.

[cheli]

The only part I wholly agree with is point number 1. Especially for me - I am acutely aware that it is an entirely selfish decision on my part to keep traveling. Because sailing is practically not an option, every time I leave Australia I have a huge environmental impact. No matter how much I try and travel responsibly and pay to offset the carbon (which I do) that's on my conscience. Yet I continue to do it.

I don't entirely agree with points 2,3 and 5. I agree these things do happen, and they probably aren't a great outcome. But that doesn't mean they HAVE to happen. That comes down to the traveller acting responsibly, sensitively and with consideration.

Point 4 is frustrating. So long as the country's only source of income isn't tourism then it shouldn't be a problem. And if it is, that's not our problem as a tourist, but something that the people and goverment of the country should be addressing.

Point 6 is just rubbish. Just because your very presence affects your environment doesn't mean you won't have an authentic experience. Authenticity is not a black or white situation - there are all sorts of layers of grey. You can still connect with the local area and be touched by them if you travel with an open mind. In fact, there's no such thing as 'complete authenticity' as described by the author - because no country lives in isolation. The Italians cook pasta because they copied Chinese noodles, My culture is as much influenced by migrant nations as it is by my immediate environment, Borders are a human construct and people constanty cross them and interact.

Having said that, investing in your own country and location is still a worthwhile pursuit that I think even many of us travellers do not do often enough.

[sianeth]

How does travel "promote" crime?! That is mental.

[aopaq]

Usually when I read articles such as this, which are largely based on generalities and an unrealistic perspective, I dismiss them as not even worth any response or even further consideration. However, seeing as Louise asked and I do have a lot of time right now, I felt it would be a fun exercise to offer my rebuttle. I just hope my sarcasm does not show through overly much! My apologies also for such a lengthy response.

Reason #1:
Few of us would argue against this reason as being worthy of great concern. However, the author's proposal that we might as well "stay at home" is not a very useful alternative. The truth is, the mere fact of us living (and therefore consuming) adds to greenhouse gas emissions. One assumption he makes is that by staying at home we will all pollute less. That maybe be true for some but then if we all decide (in particular the 500 or so folk who would have been on the transcontinental flight) to get to know the culture of our homeland by driving (even a hybrid) everywhere and continue to consume in our normal fashion, I wonder just how different the ultimate cumulative effect would be? However, I guess if we more productively spent our time at home eliminating all the cows that would help as their"emissions" of methane are also thought to be significant greenhouse gas contributors.
I would say that by writing an article presenting the concerns and viable ways individuals could offset the flight contributions of their carbon footprint through other activities would have been a more productive effort for this article (as suggested by Kit).

Reasons #2 and #3
Yes, travel does apparently commercialize great monuments and culture but I don't agree with the author's use of the "authentic experience" catch phrase. As also indicated by Cheli, I think defining an "authentic experience" is about as easy as defining what is "beauty." I don't think the majority of traveler's would suggest that their particular experiences in a country give a representative picture of the entire culture of a nation. I lived and grew up in my home country and as a multicultural society, I would be hard pressed to define an "authentic Canadian experience." So, I agree with the author's implication that one can never get a truly "authentic experience" even if you live in a country (whether for a few years or as in my case, almost a lifetime).
But with that said, I think the vast majority of travellers are just trying to get a sense of a different culture and learn from their experiences. It may not be truly "authentic" by whatever definition you choose to use but at least it has opened the mind of someone who would not have gained the same knowledge, insight or appreciation from watching tv or reading the newspaper....it will be personal. In that context, and given the current political turmoil in the world, I find it just a bit difficult to believe that having everyone stay at home (where they can continue to perpetuate their media-influenced views of different cultures) is a productive and better way to promote more tolerance and peace in the world.

Reason #4
There is little doubt that many developing countries rely on tourism for their survival so indeed we should stop this for their own good. Clearly, having these countries require to run their economies using handouts from other nations or the World Bank will certainly help them in the longterm become less dependent.
The author cites Fiji as an example where diversification has helped but in fact the entire story is not that simple. Apparently, Fiji is selling its valuable resource when most of its own citizens do not have access to clean and safe water. Sure the country is bringing in money but then it probably is spending most of it on medical and funeral costs.
So maybe then these countries should invite big business in to help them diversify their economies. I am sure that is what India had in mind when they allowed in the 1970's Union Carbide to open a chemical plant, sadly under the perception that such partners were concerned about the local people and environment more than making money. I think the reality of UC's focus became pitifully evident to the more than 3800 victims of the 1984 Bhopal disaster. Yes, when you are a poor nation, diversification rather than tourism is the way to go. I first thought that maybe, initially building a tourism base, to get some stability to an economy, made some sense. But silly me.... that is obviously not a politically sound strategy.
As for better dealing with natural disasters and other unforeseen circumstances, this is clearly a strong case for diversification. But I find it interesting that despite this common sense policy, many intelligent and wealthy investors also get taken to the poor house every time the markets take a prolonged dive. I think it is clearly a strategy every country tries to strive for but is it really that easy to make a reality? To diversify requires some initial stability and economic base which I am sure is what every small poor nation is striving for. Sadly, the only way they can currently do that is largely through tourism. I would rather try to help them through this process than refuse to give them any help and forcing them to become dependent to a different and potentially less favourable "master."

Reason #5
I also must agree that crime tends to become more dominant where tourism is flourishing. Having visited Somaliland with the rest of the travelling hoardes, I now feel ashamed at having obviously instigated the rise in piracy on the high seas that is originating from this part of the world. And here I foolishly thought that crime was usually resorted to by people with no other means to support themselves and as an act of desperation. My biggest worry is that if we do all take the author's advice and stay at home, is not our homeland crime rate going to rise?

Reason#6
Finally, there is the issue of whether travellers really get a meaningful experience from their journeys. Once again we are so fortunate to have someone like the author who clearly knows what makes each and every one of us happy and feeling fulfilled when it comes to our travel experiences. Of course, I now know that home is where I best can get a truly "authentic experience" so that is indeed comforting. This is not to say that there are not many reasons to stay at home and "learn how other people live." But to me, life is meaningful and exciting because of my travel experiences. I guess I now have to eliminate this as one inspirational aspect to my existence. Oh well, with Googlemaps and the internet, I can now travel virtually anywhere and know that I no longer have to worry about climate change. Now if the author could only tell me why I still don't feel more inspired or positive about our environmental future......

[cheli]

I randomly hit these links today and thought they related to this ethical conversation. It's covering the question of whether it's right to take tours of poverty stricken areas - the exploitation of people VS learning about how the other half live. I thought they were an interesting read; I'm all for exploring ALL areas of a place, not just the clean, PR friendly parts. But for me, the safety issue (I'm usually a lone traveling female) and also the extra insight an informed guide could give me would make me seriously consider taking one of these tours:

http://www.vagabondish.com/poverty-tourism...d-south-africa/

http://budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/art...8010701680.html

[darrenstravels]

You can't do anything these days without someone moaning it's unethical. Yet, weirdly, the ones moaning are not those who are apparently affected.

Scott is spot on. The author is grumpy because they can't, won't or don't want to travel. And I can tell - I'm exactly like that with things I'm scared to do. So I just rubbish them.

1. Travel damages the environment.

I'd personally start with polluting industry, power stations and the over use of cars in the western world first.

2. Travel commercializes a nation’s greatest monuments.

Maybe so. But why stop others experiencing them first hand?

Plus, my nations greatest monuments - and the other places I've been - are often the the places that are deserted. Not everybody needs guidebook to tell them what places they should see.

3. Travel turns culture into a commodity.

Everything is a commodity though. Even so, many people who experience a new culture learn from it, better themselves with it, and enjoy it.

4. Travel creates foreign dependence and promotes fragile economies.

Every economy is fragile. Many things affect it. We only have to look at the economies of the western world at the moment to see how fragile these things are. Every country is dependent on another for something.

5. Travel promotes crime.

Crime exists wherever people are, tourists or not. Sure, you could argue that where tourists are, so is petty crime, but the people doing it would be doing it to the locals if there were no tourists. Sure, tourists are normally carrying more money and gear, and are easy targets, but even if they weren't there, the crims would be finding other ways to earn money easily.

6. Long-term travel promotes broadly reaching but shallow experience in the traveler.

I'd argue that many of the things I've experienced were not shallow at all, but actually changed the way I think, I see and I live.

And lets be honest - if anyone of us felt like the author, we wouldn't be on a travel forum, would we?

[starlagurl]

Good one!

[barsie]

Well guys convinced me!

[starlagurl]

Haaaahahaha yeah right.

[sarahct]

I think these arguments are a little too general. As for point #2, it is understandable that a nation's greatest monuments will be popular spots for tourists to gather. People want to see these sites and I don't think it makes them any less special or wondrous. Also, I do not think travel turns culture into a commodity if you make an effort to become more familiar with the culture and make an effort to understand a new culture. You can take the time to talk to people from the place you are visiting. You can be more than just a tourist. By immersing yourself into your new surroundings, the tourist can become more than a shallow traveler. You guys should check out this website, you might find it interesting!

www.lifebeyondtourism.com

[starlagurl]

Yeah, I agree with you, but it's an individual effort. Most people I would argue, are lazy and won't make that extra effort to understand.