Some More Thoughts on Commercial Aviation and its Consequences
I had a bad week dealing with The Other, and I'm on a roll.
After yesterday's post, I got to thinking a little more about what I suggested.
It is perfectly possible that easy international travel is possibly the worst thing that could ever have happened to the nation state.
When people travel for leisure, they bring mental baggage with them - I'm not going to work for two weeks; I'm going somewhere that has a different climate, so I don't need to carry an umbrella every day in August, etc. This baggage, like all baggage, weighs the traveler down, and the problem is that for many people it doesn't get any lighter upon return.
The principal reason why international travel is bad for the nation state is that it enables one to see how different kinds of society operate. When one society performs a job well, such as rail travel in France, one becomes dis-satisfied with how that service operates at home. This can lead to discontent with one's lot.
The individual's ability to change that service is negligible. British public life is as prone to being influenced by special interests as that in the United States. Without wishing to sound cynical, in this country the rule of law has degenerated to the level of being whatever the politico-commercial kleptofascistic complex says it is.
Individuals, however, have egos, and most egos find it very hard to accept the reality of their own unimportance against the will of those whose aim is to wield power and make money.
Discontent breeds frustration. Frustration breeds rage.
If international travel were banned, there would be no fire from which such rage could spark.
If international travel were banned, we would have no need to spend billions of pounds every year on legations and embassies. The continued existence of the diplomatic profession is proof of the power of states over us all - they are representatives of governments talking to representatives of governments, most certainly not to representatives of peoples.
A good example of the absurdities this can produce is the United Nations. It used to be funny watching re-runs of shows like 'The Man from U.N.C.L.E.', and hearing lines like 'The government of Togo is with the United States!' being uttered in the utmost seriousness. One of the few positive things one can say about the neoconservatism of Victor Davis Hanson is that he is an assiduous revealer of one of the most important of truths - as American history and American culture grew from the principles of free speech, free enquiry, freedom of conscience, audit of public officials, gender equality, the right to hold private property without fear of confiscation (hmm), the primacy of contract and the rule of law, it doesn't really matter a rat's backside whether the government of Togo is with the United States on anything, ever.
But several years ago, the government of Libya assumed the chair of the UN Human Rights Commission, and diplomacy thus enabled Muammar Gaddafi, a real bastard's bastard and a killer of women and children, to pontificate on the chimera of 'human rights', mainly to societies markedly more advanced and liberal than his own.
In a world without travel, we would have no need to heed his prattling, as we would also have no need to pay for those people who travel abroad and then engage in organised crime, such as Sandy Mitchell in the illegal booze-trade in Saudi Arabia, or drug-smuggling, like Sandra Gregory in Thailand. The penalty suffered by Thais found guilty of drug-smuggling is death by firing squad, and it would perhaps serve as a useful wake-up call to Western 'travelers' and 'backpackers' who choose to take drugs in and out of that country if, for once, its King was not so gracious with his pardons when the white man brings the smack. It cannot be healthy for a Westerner to seek to break the laws of Thailand and know that they will have the support of honest citizens and taxpayers at home; and by showing their unwillingness to take their chances with Thai justice unassisted, and by their use of services such as access to Consular officials, those committed free-spirits who find themselves in Bangkwang Prison through their own actions are shown to be nothing more than old-fashioned cultural imperialists.
There are few more vocal critics of the practice of 'off-shoring' than myself. Much of it is founded on the principle that it exports wealth and opportunity - yet tourism has precisely the same effect. An individual's wealth is his to do with as he pleases, he is his own stockholder; yet why should CEO's be criticised for deciding to off-shore work, a decisions they must make in accordance with duties to their stockholders placed on them by law, while individuals who take wealth abroad should be immune from critique?
Tourism is one of Scotland's biggest industries, and the Highlands one of its most-visited zones, yet right now the Highlands are suffering a wave of suicides; and if the Highlands of Scotland are bad, the Republic of Ireland is even worse. It would be interesting to see a report by a researcher into the causes of such endemic depression, if only to see if it would confirm a theory of mine, whether in developed societies like ours it can be aggravated by what one thinks of as 'the nose against the glass'; being able to see great prosperity yet be unable to participate in it.
Now, if one-tenth of those who go abroad took their holidays at home instead, and investigated their own country, think how much more wealth would be invested in British businesses, British communities, helping to maintain the British way of life. Perhaps it might even help to reduce the level of rural poverty.
It might even save a life.
The final reason why international travel should be banned is that it weakens one ties to one's own place and people. There are certain things about one's own country that one cannot change, such as the climate. If one comes from a country where it rains all the time, like mine, the prospect of spending two weeks in constant sunshine is very appealing, particularly as it will soon be October and it will be dark at 4.30 p.m. I hate the otherwise mild Scottish winter for no other reason than lack of daylight.
After yesterday's post, I got to thinking a little more about what I suggested.
It is perfectly possible that easy international travel is possibly the worst thing that could ever have happened to the nation state.
When people travel for leisure, they bring mental baggage with them - I'm not going to work for two weeks; I'm going somewhere that has a different climate, so I don't need to carry an umbrella every day in August, etc. This baggage, like all baggage, weighs the traveler down, and the problem is that for many people it doesn't get any lighter upon return.
The principal reason why international travel is bad for the nation state is that it enables one to see how different kinds of society operate. When one society performs a job well, such as rail travel in France, one becomes dis-satisfied with how that service operates at home. This can lead to discontent with one's lot.
The individual's ability to change that service is negligible. British public life is as prone to being influenced by special interests as that in the United States. Without wishing to sound cynical, in this country the rule of law has degenerated to the level of being whatever the politico-commercial kleptofascistic complex says it is.
Individuals, however, have egos, and most egos find it very hard to accept the reality of their own unimportance against the will of those whose aim is to wield power and make money.
Discontent breeds frustration. Frustration breeds rage.
If international travel were banned, there would be no fire from which such rage could spark.
If international travel were banned, we would have no need to spend billions of pounds every year on legations and embassies. The continued existence of the diplomatic profession is proof of the power of states over us all - they are representatives of governments talking to representatives of governments, most certainly not to representatives of peoples.
A good example of the absurdities this can produce is the United Nations. It used to be funny watching re-runs of shows like 'The Man from U.N.C.L.E.', and hearing lines like 'The government of Togo is with the United States!' being uttered in the utmost seriousness. One of the few positive things one can say about the neoconservatism of Victor Davis Hanson is that he is an assiduous revealer of one of the most important of truths - as American history and American culture grew from the principles of free speech, free enquiry, freedom of conscience, audit of public officials, gender equality, the right to hold private property without fear of confiscation (hmm), the primacy of contract and the rule of law, it doesn't really matter a rat's backside whether the government of Togo is with the United States on anything, ever.
But several years ago, the government of Libya assumed the chair of the UN Human Rights Commission, and diplomacy thus enabled Muammar Gaddafi, a real bastard's bastard and a killer of women and children, to pontificate on the chimera of 'human rights', mainly to societies markedly more advanced and liberal than his own.
In a world without travel, we would have no need to heed his prattling, as we would also have no need to pay for those people who travel abroad and then engage in organised crime, such as Sandy Mitchell in the illegal booze-trade in Saudi Arabia, or drug-smuggling, like Sandra Gregory in Thailand. The penalty suffered by Thais found guilty of drug-smuggling is death by firing squad, and it would perhaps serve as a useful wake-up call to Western 'travelers' and 'backpackers' who choose to take drugs in and out of that country if, for once, its King was not so gracious with his pardons when the white man brings the smack. It cannot be healthy for a Westerner to seek to break the laws of Thailand and know that they will have the support of honest citizens and taxpayers at home; and by showing their unwillingness to take their chances with Thai justice unassisted, and by their use of services such as access to Consular officials, those committed free-spirits who find themselves in Bangkwang Prison through their own actions are shown to be nothing more than old-fashioned cultural imperialists.
There are few more vocal critics of the practice of 'off-shoring' than myself. Much of it is founded on the principle that it exports wealth and opportunity - yet tourism has precisely the same effect. An individual's wealth is his to do with as he pleases, he is his own stockholder; yet why should CEO's be criticised for deciding to off-shore work, a decisions they must make in accordance with duties to their stockholders placed on them by law, while individuals who take wealth abroad should be immune from critique?
Tourism is one of Scotland's biggest industries, and the Highlands one of its most-visited zones, yet right now the Highlands are suffering a wave of suicides; and if the Highlands of Scotland are bad, the Republic of Ireland is even worse. It would be interesting to see a report by a researcher into the causes of such endemic depression, if only to see if it would confirm a theory of mine, whether in developed societies like ours it can be aggravated by what one thinks of as 'the nose against the glass'; being able to see great prosperity yet be unable to participate in it.
Now, if one-tenth of those who go abroad took their holidays at home instead, and investigated their own country, think how much more wealth would be invested in British businesses, British communities, helping to maintain the British way of life. Perhaps it might even help to reduce the level of rural poverty.
It might even save a life.
The final reason why international travel should be banned is that it weakens one ties to one's own place and people. There are certain things about one's own country that one cannot change, such as the climate. If one comes from a country where it rains all the time, like mine, the prospect of spending two weeks in constant sunshine is very appealing, particularly as it will soon be October and it will be dark at 4.30 p.m. I hate the otherwise mild Scottish winter for no other reason than lack of daylight.
Yet the very premise of tourism is that it, unlike immigration, it is impermanent - the tourist always plans to go back. Is it not a form of masochism to deliberately go somewhere where the weather is better than your own home, knowing you'll feel rotten when you get back to the place where you have to live?
posted by Martin at 12:03 PM
2 Comments:
I agree that cheap air travel can cause problems both socially, and environmentally. I guess the level of harm depends on your attitude to the country you travel to. I travelled to Menorca this year (as I did last year and the year before that). The island, apart from the climate, is very similar to my original home, the Isle of Lewis. I have to admit that I actually enjoy the mode of travel to these islands: airline in one case, Calmac ferry in the other. The trouble with both these destinations (and most other 'tourist' destinations) is that you could visit both for a fortnight without a single meaningful communication with another human, local or otherwise. In Menorca I try to make the effort, in Lewis I don't have to try too hard. The real tourism crime is the vast bulk of humanity who trample foreign shores with no concept of locality, custom or national sensitivity. I think that's what will eventually lead to the decline of tourism as a serious national income. Sadly, in Scotland, we're not even very good at tourism.
D,
Sure.
What I'm scared of when that happens is what we will do then. What do we have to fall back on when the tourism income dries up?
We can only give each other so many haircuts.
"The real tourism crime is the vast bulk of humanity who trample foreign shores with no concept of locality, custom or national sensitivity."
And that is the best argument one could ever make against both continued immigration and also supporting expatriates who choose to make their homes elsewhere, or who go to countries like Saudi Arabia, who ignore the law on booze-trading and who then expect the rest of us to provide services for them when they get caught.
Post a Comment
<< Home