Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

There's No Such Thing As Eco-Tourism

By Anneli Rufus, AlterNet. Posted August 14, 2006.


Tourism in the post-9/11, post-colonial era remains a minefield of moral issues -- and living as a sin-free travel writer is damn near impossible.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Anneli Rufus

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Colonialism isn't dead.

Colonialism is alive and well every time you travel from the First World to the Third and come home bearing photographs of sharks and storms and slums, of scorpions fried for snacks, sunflowers bigger than your head, stalled buses whose aisles are slick with spit, and then you tell your friends and co-workers, "Oh man, it was so great, you gotta go."

We call it ecotourism and adventure travel. That sounds sensitive. We think Ugly Americans are the fat ones on cruises and on package tours -- anyone but us. We think we're different because we don't have a stars-and-stripes patch on our backpacks as -- buckle your seatbelt -- this summer's travel boom defies the presence of not one but several wars around the world right now which may or may not become a world war. This is the busiest summer on record for air travel, according to USA Today, with 207 million Americans expected to board U.S. planes for domestic and international flights, up from last summer's 205 million.

El Salvador has enjoyed a 20 percent jump in its number of visitors for each of the past two years. Colombia is up 18 percent. Record numbers are arriving in Cuba. When the Philippines' Mount Mayon started spewing lava and car-sized boulders in mid-July, the government evacuated locals, but tourists arrived in droves. Hotels were packed. Real travelers mock the drones who flock to Rennes-le-Chateau in France because they adored "The Da Vinci Code," or to Botswana because a Scotsman writes bestselling mysteries set there, or to Namibia because of Brad and Angelina, or to Vietnam for sex.

We think our motives are purer, that in the correct frame of mind, a trip to exotica means independence and not exploitation, as we come and see and -- well, not quite conquer but globalize with every dollar spent. It's easy to say: "My aim is true, my morals are on track," but Christopher Columbus and a million missionaries said so, too. Easy to think it's not corrupting or condescending or anachronistic but cool to collect snapshots of the other, trading smiles with strangers to brag about at dinner parties later: souvenirs. Off we go, from Berkeley and Brooklyn, we Marco Polos, Attilas the Hun, Captains Cook, Rudyard Kiplings with tattoos.

Takeoff. That plane transporting 207 million of us to giant-flowerland is causing global warming. That's what Ian Jack writes in the latest edition of the literary journal Granta, whose theme is "On the Road Again." Carbon emissions from aircraft into the higher atmosphere are thrice as potent as those rising from ground level, Jack writes. To slow the coming debacle, "because all we can do now is to modify the severity of the inevitable," he makes a radical proposal that we go virtually nowhere: "We would need to ration the carbon dioxide produced by traveling to an allowance of no more than half a ton a year for every human being alive today." That translates to 2,200 kilometers (1,320 miles) by car a year, with no air travel, or 1,000 kilometers (600 miles) by car a year with a round-trip international flight once every 15 years.

"Fortunately for the climate," Jack half-jokes, "a lot of the world's population is too poor to do much traveling at all."

OK, so we the corporate shills -- having shelled out to the airlines and big oil and then fouled the air -- arrive abroad. Here we are now, entertain us, spurred by the same selfish yearnings as every pioneer and pirate and imperial passenger from eras past. Yet despite the boom, Lawrence Osborne laments in "The Naked Tourist" (North Point, 2006) that there's "nowhere left to go," because "tourism has made the planet into a uniform spectacle," with everyone "wandering through an imitation of an imitation. ... The entire world is a tourist installation." As a New Yorker travel writer who has come to loathe his own profession, Osborne ought to know.

Tourism began not for fun, but as a form of torture: the medieval pilgrimage, a mortifying slog. The word derives from travailler, French for "to toil or labor." Certain murderers escaped execution by being sentenced to perform a pilgrimage, in chains.

Nearly a thousand years later, nearly all trips are pleasure trips. But after 9/11, travel became yet another loaded activity, far from automatic. Strangers wand your body, scan your shoes. And while a passenger aboard planes and trains it's so hard not to flirt with mental pictures of flying into things, of arms on fire. Maybe that's part of what fuels this summer's boom: the tingly frisson of potential danger, of denying that danger, of accepting it but not knowing its source, of not being certain that you'll actually arrive. With the airline industry on ultrahigh alert after mass arrests in Britain and talk of a thwarted plane-bombing plot, travel lurches yet another notch out of neutral, out of normal. To go anywhere now, you have to really want to go.

Although Osborne's diction evinces an elite British education -- "hoplites," "decalcomaniac," "stalactitic" and "helots" pop lightly off his fingertips -- he is too broke to afford dental work before starting his own trip through the Mideast and Asia, where every destination resembles a theme park at which "you are asked to play a part in the racial memory of others": Consumer. Invader. Crusader. Seducer. Self-hating Westerner. Buffoon.

In Dubai, Osborne wonders what anticolonialist scholar Edward Said would say about a booming emirate that, with its faux-Arabian Nights shopping malls and steel palm trees, "Orientalizes itself." Andaman Islanders act scary, then cynically hawk their handicrafts. Korowai tribesmen in remote Papua are "persuaded to change out of their T-shirts and shorts, put on hornbill penis gourds, and climb into traditional treehouses" by the operators of a tour company whose German name means "Back to the Stone Age!" Osborne develops a tremor as he quaffs more and more whisky to kill "the awful taste of simulacrum." But even the Thai health resort to which a doctor sends him -- a place where fresh flowers stud the swimming pools -- exudes a sense "of dejection, of pointlessness." Osborne flees in a cab.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Ru
Posted by: Ru on Aug 14, 2006 1:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Totally agree.
There is no such thing as eco-tourism,now. But people are not going to suddenly stop travelling- especially by air- which as you point out is the main problem.
Each individual has got look at their own carbon footprint and reduce it as much as possible. Then if you have to fly at least offset your emissions. There are any number of companies offering different ways to do this.
At Treeflights.com we plant one tree per passenger flight (a Treeflight). It's a simple way for ordinary airline passengers to take a bit more responsibility for the CO2 they are producing.
Humans, working in concert can achieve anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Eco Tourism Is Possible. Posted by: Artkansas
Good travel writing
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Aug 14, 2006 3:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can make those too poor or too cautious or too eco-sensitive to travel feel connected with more of the world.

I'm surprised there are still so many traveling for fun under modern conditions. But the opportunity for it will be diminishing as Peak Oil kicks up fuel costs. Write for the stay-at-homes, the public library visitors, the recluses, and the future generations, for they will only see Brazil and Antarctica through film and book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are addicted: we are all junkies
Posted by: Bobsays on Aug 14, 2006 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is too late. We are addicted to travel and its ever-lower costs. Eco-travel is a nice niche, and it has opened up whole new ways to experience and view exotic places. But is it any more moral or ethical than conventional travel? Not much.

I have known many adventure/eco travellers. I have seen their whore slick develop behind them like the seagulls that follow the fishing trawler. As soon as you enter a community, you will pollute it with your expectations (wanting muesli for breakfast), cause envy and anger, spark off greed wars, stew some lust. Eco travellers may try hard to only leave behind their footprints, but they often also leave behind a bit of their DNA in the local women as well.

I have always been amazed at the gap between the research I have done for a trip, and the reality on the ground. Communities in the third world can change very quickly. Once-stagnant communist hell holes become Darwinian capitalist hell holes.

Lonely Planet and its ilk have done much to make travel less intimidating. They also have a lot to answer for in inflicting tourists on the remotest outpost of the world. Lonely Planet have acknowledged this, and have thrown their arms up in frustration. You can't stop people being curious.

Eco travel is like organic milk. You can drink all the organic milk you like, but it won't change the high obesity rate in your country, it won't stop the yuppie from driving his SUV, it won't stop illegal migrants from eating junk food.

It makes you feel good (and there is nothing wrong with that) but it doesn't have much impact on the objective reality around you.

The biggest thing that would make a difference would be taste. Aesthetic taste that would block the crowding of the beachfront with fastfood joints, that would respect local designs and cultures and make sure all things reflect traditional patterns. Taste would rediscover local cuisines and make them more challenging and fresh. What we need is an army of San Francisco Queens to go out and colonise the world. It would then be a hell of lot more pleasant to look at, and you would get some beautifully perfumed food delivered by healthy, well dressed locals. Let's ditch the rugged adventurers and dispatch designers, effete foodies, and fashion freaks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We are addicted: we are all junkies Posted by: JimTheAnarchist
The Inner Journey
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Aug 14, 2006 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much of this traveling glut is fueled by a society that no longer has citizens that know how to take the inner journey of enlightenment and self awareness but have been inculcated to keep looking to the outside for the meaning of life. Different geography will not change the fundamental issues of personal happiness, environmental responsibility and genuine human understanding. I do look at all these travel advertisements and shows to determine where I will not go. As it is I always take my bike, that is my transportation and how I experience wherever I go. I eat local food, avoid hotel rooms and try to blend in. In this I am quite apart from the common traveler.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Inner Journey Posted by: yolanda
» RE: The Inner Journey Posted by: sfdenizen
» RE: The Inner Journey Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: The Inner Journey Posted by: sfdenizen
» Superficial statement Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Superficial statement Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Superficial statement Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Superficial statement Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Superficial statement Posted by: brunowe
The middle way
Posted by: boygranddakar on Aug 14, 2006 4:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm certainly concerned about CO2 emissions and global climate change, but isn't this a bit extreme? This seems like another all-or-nothing AlterNet article that seems to serve little purpose but to make people feel guilty about their lifestyle choices - eating meat, shopping for out-of-season tomatoes at a supermarket, buying the occasional article of clothing that isn't organic hemp. YOU, YES YOU, ARE DESTROYING THE WORLD.

I think Americans should travel and get grassroots experiences. People in the U.S. know so little about other cultures anyway, and reading a book or watching a TV special isn't going to give you the same experience as bargaining for eggplant with someone who doesn't speak your language. Sure, these people burn fuel when they travel somewhere, but they also usually take local public transportation - not huge tourist buses that shuttle a mere 20 people, nor cruise ships that dump sewage and invasive species, nor private jets that whisk them above the riff-raff. And they're not living in the U.S., doing the multitudes of small, daily actions that take massive amounts of energy and generate massive amounts of waste.

I can't believe that the person who travels to a foreign country every once in a while is really the problem. What about corporate jets? Private airplane use is increasing as the gap between rich and poor widens, and even the "merely rich," rather than the super-rich, are getting into private air travel. Business travelers rack up tens of thousands of air miles per year. Oh yes, and then there's the environmental impact of war - all those fighter planes in the air dropping bombs. (Paid for by Americans who don't give a damn about other countries...because they don't travel.)

Where should we concentrate our energy?

I'm tired of hearing that my individual actions are the problem. Sure, I can always live a more moral lifestyle. But "individual transformation" is so American - isolated, not organized. Why do these writers seem afraid to take on the big, systemic problems?

I'd rather see innovative ideas about how to get people to connect with each other in meaningful ways and get together with people they don't already agree with. We need to preach to the choir for strength to keep fighting, but at some point we also need to reach out to everyone else. Getting organized allows mass movements of citizens to take on the systems that exploit us and our resources. I think that would be more effective, and more inspiring, than chastising people one by one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The middle way Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: The middle way Posted by: JimTheAnarchist
» RE: The middle way Posted by: boygranddakar
» RE: The middle way Posted by: YogiBear
Better travel
Posted by: Angie on Aug 14, 2006 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wikipedia has some more interesting comments on ecotourism. A destination might be marketed that way but not actually adhere to the standards to protect the ecosystem.

I've always preferred travel where I could become part of the local culture. But there will always be travelers who are content to climb to the top of the pyramid, dive the reef, etc, to add them to their list of accomplishments.

If ecotourists would truly respect the native existence, it would help the developing country grow economically and protect some natural habitats. This would help counter some of the damage to the ozone by the air flights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is an oversimplification
Posted by: flairndip on Aug 14, 2006 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To equate travel wih colonialism is off the mark. To assume that people travel to make their friends drool with envy or to beat a Guiness World Record is a ludicrous generalization. Sure, those people exist, but come on...

I think that Americans need to see more of the world, not less. Many Americans have little or no idea about how much of the world lives, and in this solipsistic bubble continue to live as though we and we alone matter. To strive for more isolation is frightening.

Choosing to stay home rather than travel will help slow global warming??? Maybe, but I have news: somebody needs to alert the millions of people who are from those third world countries Rufus is concerned about. When I fly, I am often one of the few Westerners on board. And guess what???? Many of the tourists in the world aren't Western either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is an oversimplification Posted by: CajunCountry
I see a bit of self-righteousness
Posted by: Jesse on Aug 14, 2006 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, one thing I notice a lot about writing about the environment--especially when it discusses the effects of individual actions--is a whiff of the puritanical. It's like saying to someone they are going to hell unless they give up anything that gives them the slightest joy. "Eat no meat!" "Never buy X products!" Now, "Don't travel anywhere or you are a worthless lout!"

Any wonder why most Americans don't cotton to that real well?

Yeah, the travel industry isn't perfect. And taking planes is bad for the environment.

But you know, I traveled some and had to do it cheaply (though I recognize that as a first-worlder I am pretty rich compared to third-world people). I made a few friends here and there. And I am not sorry for helping some dude who sells silly tchotchkes to tourists make a living.

There is an extraordinary lack of nuance in this piece. I mean, eco-tourism such as it is is a hell of a lot better than exporting the forest to be turned into paper and chopsticks, no? And what the hell alternative is this guy offering?

It also assumes that most people travel to third-world countries. That simply isn't the case-- a lot of it goes between first-world nations and many local economies in France, to say nothing of Britain, or Iceland, depend on it.

Nothing I ever do is a perfect environmental footprint, and I get really tired of being told I am evil for wanting to see things in person, or eat something that isn't granola or live with clothing not made of sackcloth. I reject the notion that I am a sinner and need to be saved by either Christians or environmental zealots, even though there are many things about the latter I agree with.

You know, a friend of mine lived at the Rochester Folk Art guild for many years. He's a pretty accomplished artist himself. Very environmentally friendly and all about self-sufficiency, no TV, or even much electricity, and all that. When he left, he said the best thing about it was he finally got to own something that wan't colored brown. To this day the color makes him ill.

Travel brings a host of good things. The tradition of the gap year in England means that boatloads of Brits get to go places they might not otherwise and means they are less likely than Americans to think some startlingly ignoprant things. My trips to the Communist world in the 1980s made a big impression and made me unable to believe all the crap that was getting handed to me on the news, because I saw some day-to-day life I never would have undestood otherwise. And simply having a chat witht he guy who took my wife and I on a snorkel trip in Costa Rica was enlightening to say the least.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a proposed solution
Posted by: mwildfire on Aug 14, 2006 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what I see as the solution to the environmental and social destruction caused by today's travel, something likely to develop if we survive the End of Cheap Oil and other assorted threats with civilization more or less intact:
Customs will develop that enable people to continue to travel, but much more rarely. It will require a huge investment of time, because virtually no fossil fuel burning will be allowed or possible. Thus, people will go on journeys by foot, bicycle, sailboat, canoe, and horse. The custom that needs to develop in order for people to be able to afford it is for local commuties to have a guesthouse as part of their community center, where travelers may stay for free (though they would be expected to weed the garden, wash the dishes, and entertain the locals with stories of their travels and pictures of home). Since computers and other electronic gear don't use nearly as much power as vehicles and air conditioners, people would still be able to get a sense of what other parts of the world look like without traveling. But as someone above pointed out, there's still no substitute for the experience of being there in the flesh--especially in a post-oil world where travel becomes rare, and which thus becomes increasingly diverse again.
Some will howl that they only have two weeks vacation and can't afford to take months to see a city on another continent--but getting a brief, disconnected glimpse of a faraway place is a less valuable experience anyway, not worth the enormous environmental cost, and the social costs mentioned in this piece.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a proposed solution Posted by: JimTheAnarchist
Want Fries With That?
Posted by: NoPCZone on Aug 14, 2006 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Welcome to McWorld, where you can travel thousands of miles to see an American having a McDonald's Hamburger and a Coke with their USA Today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Want Fries With That? Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Want Fries With That? Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Want Fries With That? Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Want Fries With That? Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Want Fries With That? Posted by: brunowe
And yet another
Posted by: repo on Aug 14, 2006 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
article from a so-called progressive justifying ignorance. Stick to your own kind. Stay home. Don't go into the rest of world. Don't learn anything about anywhere else. Run away with the stereotypes about how if you are inserting yourself into someplace you weren't born and you didn't grow up, then you don't belong there at all, ever. No more travel. No more travel writing. No more travel learning. Sounds like a reactionary agent of the right in progressive self-hating clothing trying to make the world even more compartmentalized and insular. Go ahead and say it though, soon none of these silly boxes you want people to fit into aren't even going to matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent
Posted by: magmaybe on Aug 14, 2006 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An absolutely right-on article. The links between tourism and colonialism are huge.

I appreciate the author's anger and insistence. Radical viewpoints are necessary to spur thought about what we can do right now. I can't stop all my travel plans utterly, but I can consider, deeply, my reasons for travel and what choices I make.

Ecotourism affords the privileged, colonialist eye a seeming 'get out of jail free' card by attaching the world 'eco' to the front of it. Don't worry, affluent first worlders! It's 'ecotourism,' so it's okay! The fact is, there is no difference between ecotourism and any other kind of tourism, except that one is culturally cooler than the other at the moment. It's infinitely cooler right now to go kayaking among great whites than carry a camera around a resort area, but the effects on the environment, the indigenous peoples of the area, and the prevailing colonialist attitude all remain the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: xcellent Posted by: flairndip
Let's be real
Posted by: flairndip on Aug 14, 2006 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have the email addresses of several people who feed their children by working as guides and interpreters for these selfish first world colonialists you write about. Maybe you can offer them suggestions as to how they can feed their children after their trade dries up, for those who still have work after terrorism and natural disasters have already taken a toll on their livelihood.

That said, I agree that the dialogue is important. I could do without the self-righteousness, though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe travelling more is the answer?
Posted by: lamar on Aug 14, 2006 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps if Americans travelled abroad more often, and if we were more experienced outside of our culture, our country wouldn't vote for cowboy-fascists.

If no one flew commercial airlines anymore we could reduce CO2 emissions because 500,000 people would lose their jobs and not be able to drive their cars anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Give me a break.
Posted by: CajunCountry on Aug 14, 2006 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
207 Million Americans? Out of 300M?

That's manifestly not so. That's how many boardings there were. It does not mean 207M different people. One business traveler may rack 75-80 trips a year without even trying. You need three connections to get to Grandma's house for Thanksgiving...that's three boardings, not 3 people.

No, sugar, it's 50M or so (tops) mostly affluent repeat offenders.

CajunCountry

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Give me a break. Posted by: melissa999
» RE: Give me a break. Posted by: CajunCountry
» RE: Give me a break. Posted by: Ulisses
Domestic tourism isn't pretty either
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 14, 2006 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you. I've been saying for years that tourism is a form of terrorism and that a tourist-based economy bears interesting resemblance to a colonial one. And it's not just about the Third World either. I'm a year-round resident of Martha's Vineyard. Over the years I've been both patronized as "a local" and assumed to be a summer person because I speak in complete sentences. (Friends have stories of being told "I can't believe you grew up here, you're so sophisticated!") I've been told (over and over and over) how I should be grateful to the tourists and the summer people because otherwise I wouldn't be able to make a living. Yeah, and I should be grateful that a low-end "affordable" fixer-upper house goes for about $500K when the median income is something like $40K, and that many people have to move twice a year because they can't afford a year-round rental (I did this for several years -- even for a single person, it stinks) when more than 60% of the housing stock is vacant more than 10 months of the year.

As for travel being broadening -- well, most of the people who come here, even those who stay for weeks, even months, and come back year after year, see what they want to see. And most of us, most of the time show them want they want to see because often our livelihoods depend on it, in whole or in part. Even when they don't, if you actually try, politely, to introduce some of your reality into the conversation (i.e., talk to a summer visitor as you would to another year-rounder), your listeners' eyes start to glaze over or they'll say "You must have got up on the wrong side of bed this morning."

Most of these colonizers come from "blue states" and I'd wager good money that most of them vote straight Democratic. Not to mention that President Clinton's visits to the place have had devastating long-term results: Before Clinton most people who came to visit or moved here year-round knew the place and liked it; after the national media exposure (all those reporters hanging around for three weeks with almost nothing to do), more people started coming because it was The Place to Go. It hasn't been pretty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Andrei Codrescu says.... Posted by: AmyB
» RE: Andrei Codrescu says.... Posted by: coldeye
» RE: Andrei Codrescu says.... Posted by: CajunCountry
Human Habitation = Environmental Degredation
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 14, 2006 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the social model we've been following for the last 500 years,everywhere humans go the local environment suffers. In the Modern Society,we can now effect the environmental on a global scale. having Eco-Tours to regions where there is still a small chunk of what we used to be, almost smacks of pure folly. Not everyone 'packs-out' what they 'pack-in'. If you're on a 'float tour' the boat you're on is leaking spent fuel and other discharges into the very waters you're admiring.
So in effect,we're killing off the last refuges of nature,just to have a 'Natural Showcase'.
A better Eco-Tour would be to go around locally,study what's the biggest polluters and devise ways to stop it. Plant hedgerows and not fences on farm lands. The payoff is less wind erosion of top soil.greater control of field runoff,and restoration of needed habitat. There are millions of Hectars the could be replanted with the trees and shrubs that we've removed and are necessary for the cleaning of the lower atmosphere,which is where 'we' live.
The Industrial Revolution has become an Environmental Revolt. We dump tons of poisons into the air daily. Poisoning every living thing for Profit. Without regard to what's being left to the future,it's impact of the children of that future,and what of our Natural World will be made extinct by those operations. Until we recognize that pure water,clean air,and good productive soils are MORE VALUABLE than diamonds,gold,platinum,or oil. Without such a re-valuation, we
will be the new spieces on the 'Endangered' list and part of the next Eco-Tour.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pilgrimages a form of torture?
Posted by: AmyB on Aug 14, 2006 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that Mr. Rufus has not read the Canturbury Tales (1387-1400). If a pligrimage was considered torture, then why were people in the middle ages longing to go on one during the nicest season of the year?

--AmyB

Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages

--G. Chaucer

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pilgrimages a form of torture? Posted by: sunflwrmoonbeam
» Soo Whatee? Posted by: coldeye
» RE: Soo Whatee? Posted by: flairndip
» Actually.. Posted by: ABetterFuture
The Great Travel Myth
Posted by: FauxPorteno on Aug 14, 2006 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have traveled to approx. 65 countries in this world and I can tell you this much: there is precious little under the sun that is innovative, new or refreshing. I currently reside in Argentina - Buenos Aires to be exact. This city is witnessing one of the greatest growth spurts of any major metropolitan area in the world right now. Once a city with few high rises, the sky is increasing blotted out with 35 + story apartment buildings meant to accomodate European and American ex-pats who have come primarily to benefit from the excellent exchange rate. Everyone thinks they are going to learn to tango and have a beer (or a snort) with Maradona but the stark reality is much different. They isolate themselves in pockets of affluence and rarely master Spanish or make friends with locals. I realize the emphasis of this article related to eco-tourism but as I said in the opening sentence - there is precious little . . . and the similarities between eco-tourism and the rest are too great to describe separately for all intents and purposes.

What I am saying is that we are on a hunt for something that invariably does not exist. We are always searching for that last bastion of isolation only to find that KFC and Coke have beat us to the punch. I have been to the Amazon twice and had to travel for 5 days by barge deep into the interior just to get a glimpse of pristine forest. I've watched jeeps full of gringos spewing out fumes in Costa Rica and Panama. I've snorkled and dived with hundreds of other tourists in the Great Barrier Reef and picked up litter on my way down from Aconcagua and Ojos del Salado. To be completely honest I am near the end of my travels as I am increasingly disappointed with all of it. Sure there is much to see in this increasingly smaller world but all too often I have gone someplace exotic only to discover that the image in my mind's eye was probably more satisfying than actually being present. I took my wife to Europe this summer, not on some ridiculous DaVinci Code excursion but just to visit many of our friends that call it home. I will never again set foot in that area of the world. Europe is now, without a doubt, the biggest cliche on earth. That was my wife's first trip and probably my 6th or 7th and each time I go its beauty wilts and dies just a little more. Prices go up, crowds reach proportions that are so large as to be absurd and obnoxious and inconsiderate people drop candy wrappers at the Acropolis . . . (Insert your area of travel and similar story) Better to explore your own back yard, or better yet, explore your inner self.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Great Travel Myth Posted by: flairndip
» RE: The Great Travel Myth Posted by: dismayed
» don't travel much eh? Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: don't travel much eh? Posted by: flairndip
» RE: don't travel much eh? Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: don't travel much eh? Posted by: flairndip
» RE: don't travel much eh? Posted by: dismayed
» RE: don't travel much eh? Posted by: FauxPorteno
I agree
Posted by: flairndip on Aug 14, 2006 11:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with your point that there are vast inequaliies on this planet. I dislike your use of the word terrorism to describe it. It is disrespectful to the victims of the bloody, violent form of terrorism that occur every day. I hope you will never experience that where you live.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sorry
Posted by: flairndip on Aug 14, 2006 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my comment labeled "I agree" was posted in the wrong place. It is not a response to the original article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Libertarian Global Trekker
Posted by: monroedavid on Aug 14, 2006 11:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm so glad I'm not a liberal, so I can enjoy my travels around the world without guilt! But of course your liberal guilt gives you pleasure. It's an ideological variant of S&M.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Libertarian Global Trekker Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: Libertarian Global Trekker Posted by: Asses of Evil
basicplace
Posted by: basicplace on Aug 14, 2006 11:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“The tourist is an ugly person. The people do not like you. That the native does not like the tourist is not hard to explain. For every native of every place is a potential tourist; and every tourist is a native of somewhere. Every native everywhere lives a life of overwhelming and crushing banality and boredom and desperation and depression, and every deed, good and bad, is an attempt to forget this. Every native would like to find a way out, every native would like a rest, every native would like a tour. But some natives—most natives in the world—cannot go anywhere. They are too poor…They are even too poor to live properly in the place where they live, which is the very place, you the tourist want to go—so when the natives see you, the tourist, they envy you, they envy your ability to leave your own banality and boredom, they envy your ability to turn their own banality and boredom into a source of pleasure for yourself.” J.Kincaid.

In her book A Small Place, 1988, Jamaica Kincaid writes about tourists in her country Antigua, how it is such a poor place yet still a destination for relaxing and recreating. It’s mostly directed at white tourists unaware or in denial of the poverty around them. She remarks on the ease in which white tourists pass through customs, unlike how Black Antiguans are received upon arrival with boxes of much needed clothes and supplies from N. America or Europe. She’s disgusted by how tourists take pleasure in the decrepidness of the roads in rundown Antigua, overcome by joy at its quaintness and at the beauty of the island. The hospitals are staffed with doctors that no actual Antiguan trusts; they’re called the ‘three men’ because there are three of them. The library has been in disrepair since the earthquake in ‘74. But she says it doesn’t matter, most tourists bring they’re own books anyway, probably on economic history of the west and how it got rich. And it’s not from the perspective that it got rich on the undervalued labor of people like her and others walking on the streets of Antigua, but on the ingenuity of shopkeepers in England. Wristwatches were used to brag about how noble whites where, that there was little they couldn’t do. “For not only did we suffer the unspeakableness of slavery, but the satisfaction to be had from “We made you bastards rich” is taken away, too.” So tourists can’t think too much about the oppression, exploitation, and domination that exist there. It might ruin their holiday. The tourists explains to themselves that these people are not responsible for what the tourist has, nothing is owed to them; in fact the tourists believe that they are doing these people a favor, and can give hundreds of examples.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am confused
Posted by: dismayed on Aug 14, 2006 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i am trying to lead a chaste liberal life, and a recent article posted on alternet argued that i should buy all my food from distant third world countries- carbon emission be dammned- in order to right the wrongs in the world. but this article says i should stay within 10 feet of my house with my head in the sand.

skipping back and forth between, for instance "town hall" and this site leaves me with no doubt as to the depth of america's problems. stupidity on the left, stupidity on the right- and heaps of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ridiculous article
Posted by: jackalack on Aug 14, 2006 1:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't believe how bitter this author is. Travelling abroad is a wonderful thing; the best way to experience other cultures, connect with people from other cultures, exchange ideas, etc etc. Yet the author spins it into this destructive thing that people should be ashamed of.

How do you expect Americans to empathize with the poor people of the world who our government and economy is trampling over, if they never leave the states? The fact that GW never travelled abroad before taking over is telling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ridiculous article Posted by: YogiBear
What about children?
Posted by: flairndip on Aug 14, 2006 1:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You could take this debate, but instead of bashing people for travelling, you could start criticizing people for having children and bringing new generations of destruction upon the earth. I would be interested to know what people think about that.

Personally, I don't like telling people how to live, but for the people in this debate who do, I am curious if bearing children is alright, or if we should just adopt, or maybe let the pathetic human race die out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Civilization And The Illusion of Progress
Posted by: Gatsby on Aug 14, 2006 1:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a culture is to remain civilized, several grand illusions must be maintained. And, the most important myth of any civilization is that their particular society is worthy and progressing towards the way things ought to be.

Sometimes, civilized ideals fly in the face of how biological evolution actually works. Simply put, life survives by overwhelming death, but when a species overwhelms it's range, it will eventually decline. There will be no exceptions for humans, either. Human beings are members, not masters, of nature.

The archeological record suggests that for a hundred thousand years, Homo sapiens survived and thrived by gathering, scavenging and hunting in small kin-related groups. Our far distant ancestors made all their tools, shelters, communication and cultures from scratch. In doing so, they developed an intimate relationship with the land- or seascape from which they earned their living. Aboriginal peoples co-evolved with their surroundings, but they were not conservationists, preservationists or noble savages. They could be outrageously cruel, petty and murderous. Aboriginals were just people that adapted to the places they occupied or they went extinct.

About ten-thousand years ago, as the last ice age ended, human beings inhabited many regions on earth. The warming global climate - which is still going on - melted the great ice sheets and valley glaciers that flooded regions of the world. The warmer climate and all that fresh water caused an explosion of life - including human life. There's a very important ecological equation to remember: more food = more life.

Suddenly, there were too many people to live successfully by gathering, scavenging and hunting in certain places. Several groups of people in the Levant region, the Indus River Valley, today's Southern China and mid-Central America began domesticating plants and animals to avoid starvation. Sedentary agriculture was a SURVIVAL strategy that required a serious change in culture. Humans were forced to agriculture they did not progress to it. In every case, where agriculture was practiced, cities and civilization soon followed.

The practice of intensive agriculture is not sustainable in the long-term, thus, "natural resources" from adjacent areas are required to keep it going. And, when there's an excess of food that must be stored and protected -- Hello! organized warfare. Howdy! hierarchy of authority. Welcome! permanent underclass and a division of labor by myriad means ... by race, age, gender, athletic ability, martial prowess, invention, greed. And, don't forget to include all those monuments that honor monument builders.

Voila! civilization.

Another important thing to remember: essentially, agriculture mines the future to enrich the present. And, this causes something unintended -- exponential population growth and the ever-increasing need for goods, services and information to coordinate it all.

To me, eco-tourism is the least of our collective worries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Off the Mark
Posted by: kbartoy on Aug 14, 2006 2:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is really not much more than a rant. There are few if any facts and the analysis of the history of "travel" is weak at best.

The author misses a huge aspect of travel that has a deep historicity and that is that travel is a way to gain experience and knowledge. Is this quest "colonialist"? Perhaps. But, what is her solution? To stay locked behind our doors and not venture out into the world?

I personally find it abhorrent that only approximately 30% of our elected representatives in Washington DC have passports. I do not believe that anyone should be able to forge foreign policy (or perhaps even domestic policy) without having stepped outside of this country. I have been trained as an anthropologist and I believe deeply in the need for us to study, visit, see, etc. other societies and cultures so that we can be more critical of our own.

If the author wanted to quote Margaret Mead, perhaps she should have dug deeper into that wonderful anthropologist's writings. The author may have stumbled on this gem ...

"As the traveler who has once been from home is wiser than he who has never left his own doorstep, so a knowledge of one other culture should sharpen our ability to scrutinize more steadily, to appreciate more lovingly, our own."

Or, even this one ...

"If we are to achieve a richer culture, rich in contrasting values, we must recognize the whole gamut of human potentialities, and so weave a less arbitrary social fabric, one in which each diverse human gift will find a fitting place. "

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What an absurd proposition
Posted by: EricD on Aug 14, 2006 2:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anneli seems to subscribe to the same false-dichotomous thinking that pervades our current administration - "Either you're a completely virtuous dirt-eating hermit who dares not venture 50 feet from your cave, or you're basically Christopher Columbus wearing Chacos."

That's just ridiculous. You damn well bet there is such a thing as eco-tourism, and it is definable in the context of a whole spectrum of types of travel. Apparently, though, to Anneli, if you weren't among the select few who saw Machu Picchu 20-30 years ago - you know, the people back then appreciated it - well, you're just some common adrenaline-junkie slob who's basically just ruining it these days.

I do have to say that I'm glad to hear that Anneli isn't traveling any more. That's one less pretentious puritan that I'll be encountering in my travels in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pretty accurate. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: What an absurd proposition Posted by: Asses of Evil
Another Quote ...
Posted by: kbartoy on Aug 14, 2006 2:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“If an ass goes travelling he will not come home a horse.”
-Thomas Fuller

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

maybe but ...
Posted by: cold2touch on Aug 14, 2006 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tourism enriches the pockets of the host and soul of the tourist in equal measure (which means it is sometimes a net loss).
I have learned more through travel, both in my youthful and slothful days than ever in so many useless years of school.

I think that travel should go back to the days of old; steamers, silboats, trains, why, even dirigibles. Only those with time on their hands should indulge, which will mercifully put paid to legions of lawyers, analysts and other Wall street types.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So don't read travel writing....
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Aug 14, 2006 4:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I accept that for many, travel might just be another symbol of status, but I think that many have a curiosity about the destinations to which they go. Yeah, maybe the world has become smaller and more uniform to some degree, but I don't believe that there's nowhere left to go. Usually I go places where there aren't too many resorts or evidence of large-scale tourist business, but you can still have a new experience which others haven't had. I guess the point is that many don't do this, but I imagine many Alternet readers are quite adventurous travelers also.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is real?
Posted by: Guy on Aug 14, 2006 4:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wondered about this too; what is real anymore? When living in Barcelona and visiting Provence, France. All the cute little viillages in Provence were set up for visitors, local and foreign; they weren't real, living, working towns. But look at this even in your own backyard. What is authentic? The world famous Napa Valley wine area of CA is near where I live. Go there and you will find tons of wineries, but they are all set up to extract the max number of dollars from the visitors while giving them a supposedly "real" idea of what a working winery is like. Not. It's like "WineLand" at Disney World or something.

What is real anymore?

Guy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Strawberry Fields Forever Posted by: coldeye
Are there still places in the world without cell phones? That's 'eco-' enough for me.
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 14, 2006 7:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I need to travel. Even though I believe I live at the center of the universe, it has now been turned into one unrelenting telephone booth. Everywhere I go, I am closeted with people talking on the telephone.

Have you noticed how idiotic a one-sided conversation sounds? Even while it might be something other than, “Oh me? I’m riding on the Blue Line into Los Angeles. We’re passing the Compton Casino. I am wearing my red shoes today. Yeah, you know, the ones with the gold buckles…blah blah blah.”

Are there places where people still talk to strangers? Or, maybe, even friends for that matter. When I see some dude lunching with a gorgeous woman and spending the whole lunch on the telephone, I imagine she must be a gold digger. Or else he ain't gettin' any.

If anyone answers a cell phone while talking with me, they can call me. My answering machine will talk to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I saw Machu Picchu and I'm gonna go back
Posted by: TomCampitelli on Aug 14, 2006 7:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had the opportunity to wake up early one morning and walk to Machu Picchu. I don't think I've ever seen anything more beautiful. However, sitting atop the pyramids in Tikal in Guatemala as the sun began to set and the howler monkeys cried in the distance was a very close second. Viva international travel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

o me, eco-tourism is the least of our collective worries.
Posted by: CajunCountry on Aug 15, 2006 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amen.

"The future will be a struggle between huge competing systems of psychopathology." - J. G. Ballard

And that 'future' is now. And the psychopathology is denial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They isolate themselves in pockets of affluence and rarely master Spanish or make friends with local
Posted by: CajunCountry on Aug 15, 2006 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remove 'Spanish' and substitute 'English' and explain to me how exactly this differs from the enclaves of wealthy 'flight capital' ex-pats currently inhabiting their own gated 'pockets of affluence' in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, NYC and Seatlle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those telling us not to travel are those who have traveled . .
Posted by: slowerpez on Aug 17, 2006 11:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why is that? I'm pretty young, and have only traveled to Costa Rica and Cuba-- in both instances to visit family-- and I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed both trips-- even outside the joy of visiting family. Now, I'm totally willing to consider the notion of curbing my traveling, but i think it's interesting that those on this site who are most adamant about not traveling were once travel guides and other well-traveled individuals. So . . . you get to have the experience, and decide for us that we shouldn't do it too? hmmmm . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Colonialism is better that today
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Aug 18, 2006 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Heck, the "3rd World" would probably be better off under colonialism of the past than the crazed, capitalist/imperialist exploitation they undergo today. At least under colonialism there were goods and protections provided by the master countries. Now we just take all we want and leave them to thier wars, poverty, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Incentive to stay home
Posted by: EEE on Jan 7, 2007 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stay home and make your own backyard somewhere you want to be. Keep it interesting. Stop knocking down old neighborhoods, buildings, filling every square foot of open space in the interest of the 'bottom line'. The bottom line is the quality of life available on a daily basis. Plant trees, establish community gardens, paint historic murals, lead tours. If noone would want to take a tour of your community, something's wrong. Stop killing off all signs of life with pavement and palm trees. Include the entire community in the planning and production of their own environment. Stop hiring the same planners with 'cookie cutter' ideas. Support your local busineesses. Set up creative venues and creativity will flourish and you will have someplace interesting to visit every day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why does it have to be black or white?
Posted by: lightwing1 on Mar 5, 2007 2:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, after reading everyone's comments above (excepting the annoying spam crap), I wondered why no one suggested maintaining our standard of living and freedom to travel - the right to feed our basic curiosity - and being eco at the same time? How? By finding alternative fuel solutions for air travel, by finding alternative aircraft designs that use less fuel or less impactful fuels - that's how. We will never be able to completely suppress or repress the basic human desire to explore, learn, grow - nor should we. What we should be doing is putting all of the creative energy expressed above into research that explores ways of living at the current standard - sustainably. But - that is the long, hard road, isn't it? Not so easy a task for those who wish to capitalize on the easy superiority of castigating others for their so-called "imperfections." Not that such issues shouldn't be discussed and evaluated, but never for the purposes of levelling blame. The rationale expressed in the above article reminds me of the extremism of the Jains, in India, who believe that ejaculation is a sin because it kills sperm. By that level or reasoning, we should all just kill ourselves since that is the only actual way to negate our impact on Mother Earth - to avoid damaging anything at all.

Humans are a part of the ecology of the Earth and must use it's resources to survive. The question is not whether or not we should use or not use these resources. It is "How do we use the resources of the Earth in a sustainable way that allows us the most freedom to learn, grow, and connect as we wish, but honors the basic balance of the eco-system?

If it gives you kicks to deny yourself the pleasures of existence, to close yourself in to a village-centric existence and makes you feel "purer" or whatever, then go for it. Just don't foist it on me. I'll make my own choices, thanks.

Let's not shut the capacities of the human race down. Let's come up with creative solutions instead. Instead of trying to change behaviors (and btw, if you are approaching it from that viewpoint, arrogance and self-righteousness won't win you many converts), why not a massive push for those concerned with eco-sustainability to get into schools and colleges and start studying actual methods of updgrading/transforming our technologies so that they embody the low-impact model you wish to see implemented on the planet. Hype, rhetoric, threats and/or guilt trips won't solve these problems. Using our brains just might.

Anyway, to buttress my rhetoric, here are some links to sites that discuss the possibilities. Not all of these efforts will meet with your approvals, but at least efforts are being made:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13427343/
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/111.htm
http://www.baylor.edu/bias/index.php?id=34701
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004164.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/14/business/air.php
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
2006/03/060327214605.htm
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread205112/pg1

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]