Re: [pf] ethics of travel

by Molly Williams

18 December 2000 22:24 UTC

Sharon,

My comments follow your comments:

> The idea is to take a year (or more) off from regular middle-class American
> life and take our children on a journey around the world (or at least the
> hemisphere). I have several motivations for doing this, which are:
> 
> * The community in which we live is extremely homogeneous, at least in terms
> of race and ethnicity. I worry that my children will grow up with a
> narrow-minded view of the world and its people, despite my best efforts to
> teach them otherwise. Experience (or the lack thereof) is so much more
> powerful than lectures.

Obviously, you could "solve" this problem by living some place else, in
an ethnically diverse urban (or non-urban) environment. You could also
attend a black/white/Hindu/Moslem/whatever-you-are-not church or other
group. Travel is not your only option here.

> * I believe that low-budget travel is one of the most effective ways to
> expand the mind and touch the soul.
> 
> * The children would learn more from this experience than they could learn
> in 10 years of school.

I think this is your strongest argument. Travel is mind-broadening and
life-changing, if allowed to be. [Still, some people can travel
thousands of miles and never learn anything (my brother-in-law is one of
these people).] Kids are especially impressionable, and you and their
dad would be seeking and interpreting diverse experiences for them, so I
think from this standpoint it's a fabulous idea and you stand a good
chance of achieving your goal of truly educating your kids.

> * This experience would give my husband and I an opportunity to evaluate
> possible changes in our livelihoods.
> 
> * I have been feeling a inexplicable tug (a calling, if you will) to go to
> Latin America. This is especially strange because I don't speak a word of
> Spanish, and, until earlier this year, had no more than a passing interest
> in visiting Latin America (aside from the usual winter fantasy of lying on a
> Mexican beach instead of shoveling last night's snow from my sidewalk). My
> husband doesn't share this urge, but is intrigued by it.

I don't think people should ignore their intuition (sorry, hard-core
scientists). If your husband is amenable -- as it sounds like he is --
to accompanying you on this part of your journey, then that's another
good reason to go. Life is not a dress rehearsal, as they say. 
 
> * I want to research/write a book, and travel in the way I envision it would
> be key to the research. I already have compiled a list of cities to visit
> for this project.
> 
> * Finally, the shallowest (but perhaps the strongest) motivation is that
> we're both in a rut right now after nearly 9 years in the same place with
> the same occupations.

I don't see this reason as shallow. In fact, I see the first reason you
gave (kids need more diversity) as somewhat fabricated, for the reasons
I stated before, and the writing-a-book reason also rang false to me, as
though you are attempting to justify your desire. 
 
> To minimize the negative impact of the travel on the planet and our
> children, we would have a few ground rules:
> 
> * Surface transportation only, using public transport whenever possible.
> Buses would probably be our primary mode of long-distance transport, with
> walking being our daily mode. If we wait a few years until the children are
> capable, we could make it a bike journey.
> 
> * We would "home-base" for at least a month at a time, and explore a region
> from a central spot where we would rent a room or small apartment. This
> would be much easier on the children than moving every few days or so. If
> the trip were confined to Latin America, we might spend 3 months in Mexico,
> 3 months in Nicaragua, 3 months in Ecuador, and 3 months in Chile, for
> example.
> 
> * In every location, we would volunteer our services and skills with a local
> organization. I've identified dozens of possibilities already, including (my
> favorite) an organic farm and eco-learning center in Ecuador that exchanges
> room and board for volunteer services.
> 
> The more I think about this plan, the more I wonder if it's the *right*
> thing to do, regardless of whether it's the *desirable* thing to do. The
> cons:
> 
> * The only way we could possibly afford to do this (assuming we could at
> all) is to spend most of our time in poor countries where our strong
> American dollar goes a long way. Even if we go to great lengths to ensure
> that we purchase goods and services in a "fair trade" manner, would we still
> be participating in a form of exploitation?
> 

Aren't you now, living in the U.S.?

 * Considering that most of the people on this planet do not have
adequate
> food and shelter, is a trip such as this morally justifiable? If we have
> extra money to kick around, shouldn't we just donate it to a worthy cause?

I think some people should donate their excess to what they deem a
worthy cause, but that's not the answer for everyone. For one thing, the
more Americans (and westerners in general) who see and experience the
true material poverty and emotional/familial richness of the third
world, the more people who will be likely to act/speak/live/write these
experiences, in whatever form that takes.

> * Is it possible for travel ever to be environmentally/socially/culturally
> benign? No matter how good our intentions, would we be contributing to the
> pollution of a place just by being there?

No, I'm sure it's not possible. It's not possible to live and be totally
benign.

> * How likely is it that our children would get malaria or something?

Life is risky in some way for everyone. Get shots! 

~ Molly