There is an arrogance, or ignorance, to the premise that travel somehow makes people more accepting of others or broadens horizons.
Firstly- is it that travel causes people to be more accepting or that people who are naturally more accepting or curious are more likely to travel and experience other cultures?
Secondly- the assumption is generally that by seeing places other than where a person lives, they’ll embrace the wonder and differences between people and places. This completely ignores people who’s thought process would be to dislike places BECAUSE they are differ t or unfamiliar, or people who would see other places and decide that where they are from or how things are done there seem preferable to them.
3. It’s a bit elitist. Travel has been a privilege through most of history. While long distance travel is more accessible to many today, it is still out of reach to over 90% of the planets population and is far less practical even in developed countries for….
… those of less than reasonably secure backgrounds. Many will say how cheap or easy travel is, and the fact they can say that is a sign of privilege that they either didn’t have the responsibilities and barriers others who cannot do so have, or have support and resources others do not.
4. It’s killing the planet and the number of people advocating all manner of “green” measures and telling people to give up meat or their hobbies or to walk if they can’t afford expensive “green” transit or can’t access other options… but who also regularly travel and advocate travel stuns me.
A single flight can equal the carbon emissions of a person does living their life in a year.
Airline pollution and efficiency has improved by around 50% since the 1950’s, but the sheer volume of travel has increased exponentially and so even at 50% reduced pollution the total pollution of flight has gone far beyond what it was in the 1950’s. Other travel options like train or boat may or may not….
.. be available and tend to be less popular due to their generally longer transit times and often unfavorable cost benefit ratios- but large sea vessels tend to have high emissions and create all sorts of other pollution problems and dangers to marine ecosystems. Cruise ships are just about one of the worst choices for common leisure when it comes to both the environment as well as the socioeconomic horrors of such an exploitive, predatory, opportunistic and shady industry. The environmental and human costs of travel are often far higher than the price tag or personal costs.
So in conclusion am I saying people shouldn’t travel? Not exactly. That’s not really practical. We probably should put some more thought into the whole thing though and not consider travel so frivolously or treat it as compulsory.
I’d argue we should stop advocating travel as some sort of path to betterment and implying that the well travelled have some sort of theological or ideological humanitarian advantage- I mean we see above a sliver of the evidence to the contrary- that there could be said to be selfish excesses at the expense of others at play. That if one treasured the differences between people and the beauty of our world they’d put the preservation of those things ahead of their need to experience them first hand or to have the ability to say they’d “been there done that.” Then again- traveling is fun. lol. So…. No one is perfect I guess.
Firstly- is it that travel causes people to be more accepting or that people who are naturally more accepting or curious are more likely to travel and experience other cultures?
Secondly- the assumption is generally that by seeing places other than where a person lives, they’ll embrace the wonder and differences between people and places. This completely ignores people who’s thought process would be to dislike places BECAUSE they are differ t or unfamiliar, or people who would see other places and decide that where they are from or how things are done there seem preferable to them.
3. It’s a bit elitist. Travel has been a privilege through most of history. While long distance travel is more accessible to many today, it is still out of reach to over 90% of the planets population and is far less practical even in developed countries for….
4. It’s killing the planet and the number of people advocating all manner of “green” measures and telling people to give up meat or their hobbies or to walk if they can’t afford expensive “green” transit or can’t access other options… but who also regularly travel and advocate travel stuns me.
A single flight can equal the carbon emissions of a person does living their life in a year.
Airline pollution and efficiency has improved by around 50% since the 1950’s, but the sheer volume of travel has increased exponentially and so even at 50% reduced pollution the total pollution of flight has gone far beyond what it was in the 1950’s. Other travel options like train or boat may or may not….
I’d argue we should stop advocating travel as some sort of path to betterment and implying that the well travelled have some sort of theological or ideological humanitarian advantage- I mean we see above a sliver of the evidence to the contrary- that there could be said to be selfish excesses at the expense of others at play. That if one treasured the differences between people and the beauty of our world they’d put the preservation of those things ahead of their need to experience them first hand or to have the ability to say they’d “been there done that.” Then again- traveling is fun. lol. So…. No one is perfect I guess.