International tourism in NZ - what's it worth?

The Minister of Tourism, who also happens to be the Prime Minister, likes to go on about how valuable tourism is to the New Zealand economy. He is correct that tourism contributes a substantial amount to the economy - $23.4 billion was spent on tourism in 2012[1], contributing $6.2 billion or 3.3 percent to the country’s Gross Domestic Product.

It is interesting to note, however, that $13.8 billion of the $23.4 billion spent was done so by domestic tourists, a fact that John Key may have forgotten to mention on his various jaunts overseas to promote New Zealand as a tourist destination. Such business has, in my view, a bleak future.

Peak Oil and Climate Change will limit global tourism, placing far greater importance on local tourism. While this will reduce the amount of overseas tourists (and their foreign currency) entering the New Zealand economy, it will also mean that New Zealanders will increasingly spend their tourist dollars within the New Zealand economy. Tourism, much like the rest of the economy, is a sector that should promote the ‘buy local’ ethos.

Indeed, in December 2012, 216,800 New Zealanders travelled overseas. What if these people travelled within New Zealand, spending their tourist dollars in our economy rather than other countries’ economies?

If New Zealand is to prepare itself for the future, it’s high time to invest in sustainable public transport infrastructure that will facilitate not only domestic tourism, but also the efficient, low-carbon transportation of goods and services throughout the country. 

And, while we’re at it, perhaps the Minister of Tourism should save the carbon emissions and spend his tourist dollars in our economy. I haven’t been to Hawaii, but I can certainly provide a few suggestions for lovely beaches in New Zealand!

---

[1] “Tourism expenditure includes spending by all travellers, whether they are international, resident householders, or business and government travellers. International tourism expenditure includes spending by foreign students studying in New Zealand for less than 12 months.” Statistics New Zealand (2012). Tourism Satellite Account: 2012. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand. P. 9. Available from www.stats.govt.nz

Speed's greed

Technology was intended to increase our leisure time and in many ways it has, but I'm curious to consider how the notion of leisure is evolving in a technology-saturated society. My assertion is that while technology has made many tasks easier, thus technically freeing us up for more leisure, it has simultaneously altered the expectations we have of our free time. Indeed, I believe that leisure time is no longer about recreation (re-creating oneself internally) but about achieving things externally. As such, I think we have become preoccupied with quantity (external outcomes) rather than quality (internally fulfilling) in terms of our leisure activities.

To further explore this, I'd like to look at tramping, a form of recreation that for me epitomises leisure and re-creation. When tramping I have to slow down to a walking pace, I connect with my surroundings (people, nature etc.), I have to limit my wants to that which will fit inside my backpack and limit my use of technology to the bare essentials (a friend's Emergency Locator Beacon and GPS). Perhaps most importantly however, there is time to think, to ponder and to work through internal processes.

When I was tramping last weekend with a bunch of friends we encountered a group of 'speed hikers'. They arrived at the hut at 10pm to cook up some dehydrated meals before heading back out into the darkness to walk a further 2 to 3 hours to their final destination, a hut on the ridge with a stunning view.

The impression I got from these speed hikers was that the aim of their excursion was to walk a long distance in a short amout of time. The fact that they were walking at night and eating dehydrated meals made it seem to me that they were not that fussed about the view nor the quality of the food they ate. Similarly, the speed with which they walked was (in my opinion) not conducive to connecting with their surrounds nor with themselves as individuals.

While I understand that not everyone sees the world in the way that I do (which is great!) and nor does everyone have the same aspirations as me (which is also great), I just think that this example of the speed hikers illustrates the way that leisure is changing to become more focussed on externally apparent 'outcomes'. It seems to me that leisure and recreation is increasingly about how much one can fit into one's free time which seems the antithesis of what it should be about.

My concern is that the speed with which we can achieve things in today's world as a result of technology is having a negative effect on the way we live our lives. As Ronald Wright has written in "A Short History of Progress", we are running 21st Century software on hardware that has not been upgraded for millennia. In other words, the world is changing at an exponential rate (thanks in the most part to technology), yet humans are still working with the same brains that we have had for centuries.

It's time to make some time to disconnect from technology and reconnect with ourselves, our friends, family and nature.

On disempowerment and oppression

Like many a new employee I started out with great enthusiasm and drive.

Like many an employee within this particular organisation I became crippled by inaction and the inability to effect change. As a result, like many an employee within the organisation I unfortunately became cynical.

This is how it happened.

I tried to do my work in the best way I knew how - by getting stuck in and going for it. It had worked in my previous jobs, so I assumed it would work in this one. When barriers were put in my way I tried to find ways through them or around them. That seemed to work for a while until I started trying to address the fact that there were barriers in the way in the first place. So I began trying to tackle the internal hurdles to action. When this was met with resistance I began to question my colleagues: Why didn't they want to make things better? After some time I realised that most of them had followed a similar path to me and had ended up feeling hopeless and helpless.

This story seems to me a classic one of disempowerment.

Disempowerment (v): to deprive of power, authority or influence.

So what happens when someone is disempowered?

Well, from my experience at work, they either get angry and fight, or get angry and leave, or, worst of all, they get cynical and stay. This last outcome perpetuates the system that creates the cynicism in the first place. Dealing with people that have given up is painful, disempowering and toxic to an organisation's internal culture and ability to get things done.

In the grand scheme of things my experience of being disempowered is really not that bad. I have the option of leaving my job (and thus the source of my disempowerment), a luxury that many disempowered people around the world do not have.

This experience has got me thinking more about how disempowerment affects those people with little or no options to change the situation in which they are living. I don't for a moment want to imply that my experience of feeling disempowered in my workplace is comparable to that endured by people living lives in which they are completely disempowered - I'm thinking here of people that live in poverty or who live under oppressive regimes. What I do think, however, is that the nature of the experience of disempowerment is similar, it is just on a scale of magnitude that is completely different.

It seems to me that there is a spectrum of disempowerment that goes from the trivial through to the oppressive. My experience is certainly closer to the trivial than the oppressive, however, I think that the options for action remain the same regardless of where one's experience of disempowerment falls on the spectrum:
- to fight;
- to leave (flight);
- or to become cynical and essentially give up and accept disempowerment as a given.

If this is the case, then my question is as follows:
Is terrorism a justifiable action by those living within an oppressive regime and for which leaving is not an option?

I don't feel adequately informed to reasonably and/or responsibly answer this question, but what I can say is that from my experience, giving up is not a desirable course of action but rather a position one is likely forced into taking if the other options are not possible, plausible or palatable.

The bubble is popped!

I spent over six years and tens of thousands of dollars studying at university to, among many other things, learn how to critique and question. I toyed with, tested and then constructed an ethical framework and slowly carved out a worldview that serves me to this day. I like to think of those years as the years that I created my own 'canon', for I am the product of the books that I have read.

On gaining employment with a large bureaucratic organisation I have found that the skills of questioning and the art of argumentation for ethical ends are generally undesired. I am expected to accept that the dysfunction is as inherent to the system as is the indoctrination.

I'm not sure whether to feel insulted or angry. Perhaps it is both.

On the erosion of a shared moral code

Religion has historically provided a cross-society moral code that is by and large subscribed to by the masses. It creates by faith or by fear a shared sense of what is 'right' and 'wrong'. The social norms created through such a system can be (and have been throughout history) used for both good and bad. Indeed, there are instances where the agreed moral code has been contravened by those within the institution - I'm thinking here of paedophilia within the Catholic Church. However at the same time, the Christian teaching of God as Love has been used to encourage compassion and charity within the community.

I am not religious myself and I do not believe that such a framework for society's moral code is perfect, however, I'm not sure that what we have today is any better. 

As the mainstream move away from religion there is the simultaneous breakdown of a shared moral code at a cross-society level. Individuals or clusters of people (sub-communities / cultures) create their own unique sense of morality and as a result the individual or the sub-community become the sole point of reference and/or verification for what is moral. Indeed, post-modernity has placed ‘truth’ (and I would argue morality) solely with the individual and thus one person’s truth or sense of morality is just as valid and authoritative as the next person’s.

Of course, like the examples of Christianity above, this secular system has both good and bad sides. An individual's or a sub-community's sense of what is right may lead to societal change such as the passing of legislation to allow same-sex civil unions, but it may equally be used to authorise hate crime camouflaged as freedom of speech. What is morally right or wrong depends on one's perspective and with the fracturing of a cross-society shared moral code it is easier to advocate for one's own agenda with the likelihood that there will be someone else out there with a similar perspective willing to support your cause. 

Again, I must stress that there are, in my view, positives and negatives to both the traditional religious and the indiviudalist systems.

My fear with the individualisation of morality however, is what happens when advertisers prey on the vulnerability of the individual. By targetting their marketing to those with a more lax sense of what is good / bad / right / wrong for the wider community, advertisers indulge, justify and perpetuate a moral code that is inherently self-centred. This has resulted in the proliferation of advertising that is focused on the individual – the ‘me’ / ‘I’ / ‘my’ generation of advertising. Individuals without a society-wide outlook are enticed by the advertising that appeals to them and their individual needs, thus having no qualms about indulging their selfish wants while ignoring the needs of wider society.

The capitalist system’s premise of competition and ‘getting ahead’ further validates this selfishness and serves to erode the moral code of those individuals with a more society-wide outlook as they are seen to be losing out. As the sayings go, “nice guys finish last” and "eat or be eaten". Taken to its extreme, this system would result in a society devoid of compassion, charity and empathy.

Thankfully we are not there yet but my concern is that if the advertisers had there way, that is where we would end up. It seems to me that there is a moral power struggle going on between those promoting indulgence of one's selfish wants and those promoting the fulfillment of societal needs. As is so often the case, the choices we make on a daily basis become the expression of where we sit in this struggle.

On 21st Century preachers

With the vast array of ills that the world faces in the coming decades, there is an already well-established – and growing – industry for secular preachers that travel the international circuit spreading the good word about all manner of things. From new and innovative ways to reduce ones’ greenhouse gas emissions to case studies from far off lands of how indigenous cultures managed to stave off the exploitative advances of a foreign owned mining company from their centuries old ancestral lands. There is no shortage of such well meaning soothsayers, and, likewise, no shortage of people willing to pay a hefty price to receive their sermon.

Throughout history there have always been such individuals, be they missionaries, magicians or witchdoctors that travel from town to town, selling their wares. Today’s incarnation is generally equipped with the latest in Apple’s technology, a website with earth-saving resources for sale and a back catalogue of photos of happy looking workshop attendees from around the globe.

I have no problem with such practice. Indeed I think these people are an important part in the puzzle for how we negotiate our way through the coming years and crises. 

My prediction, however, is that with time, the messages being delivered will become increasingly more religious in their tone. As the realities of a changing climate and scarce resources come to bite, there will, I believe, be a concomitant turn to religion as people seek some form of spiritual refuge in what will prove to be an increasingly harsh and ruthless world.

Change starts with you

What is the one thing that links our world's social, environmental, political, and economic problems....?

Yip, that's it, us. Human beings.

Is it conceivable that we are at the heart of all of these problems because we have not come to terms with the issues that we as individuals face within ourselves?

Are the major issues that we face as a species and a planet perhaps the result of individuals' inner problems externalised and compounded one upon another?

The Austrian psychiatrist Viktor E. Frankl wrote of the "existential vacuum": the emptiness within the individual. I think that it is as a result of the void within that we have created destruction without. In an attempt to create meaning to fill the existential vacuum we are destroying the people, place and structures (physical and metaphysical) that surround us.

How else could we live in a world of oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, riots at the G20 in Toronto and a never-ending war in Afghanistan?

Only when we respect ourselves will we be able to treat the rest of our world and its inhabitants with the respect that they deserve.