Elephants, to be or not to be

Yes, yes, I know you guys have been frantically expecting the elephants. Not to worry, here they come.  The tour with the elephants was a great one, for several reasons. We chose to go with the local travel agent, from a connection at the hotel, instead of Fritidsresor, which was really a great choice! Much less people (just us and two other couples and one of those couples now constitutes really good friends!), much cheaper (almost half the price) and shows some other things than the official tour (a better chance to see things behind the scenes). Getting behind the scenes is really what it is about, for me. Meeting some locals, sampling the local cuisine, listening to the music. To see how they live and enjoy life, and the contrast of how that differs to our own way of life. And perhaps even to hone or advance my own way of living. That's really what matters most to me. I want something out of it that allows me to become a better person. They say that travel broadens the minds, which is quite true, but it all depends on you. You have to let it! You have to be open for the change!

What should you do during your vacation? Ultimately, it comes down to yourself. I have been one to want to activate myself, do something, experience something. Lying at the pool lapping sun is not really for me. As a contrast, Vendela adores her sunbed and rest, so we both make a compromise. I think, in retrospect, neither of us is unhappy about the composition of the vacation though. The only real issue would probably be me, wanting to have some photoshoots. This time around, I only got to bring my camera on excursions, snapping pictures as we went. I had hoped for more, but sometimes, there's just not enough time and focus (pardon the pun). Then there is the issue of travelling abroad as a matter of course, and the moral and ethical aspects of doings things like riding elephants and visiting parks. Is tourism bad or good? Are we helpful for the country's economy, improving the way of life for the local population, or are we ruthless exploiters bringing only the empty allure of the almighty dollar? Personally, I think that both cases can be argued for in a persuasive and convincing fashion, and it will ultimately depend on you and your own personal choices. It does even boil down to the same debate as prostitution or drug trafficking. Who is to blame? The drug user? The dealer? Or society? The sex purchaser? The prostitute? The pimp? The local government? The population? Or the tourist? I think I will argue the same thing here as I have done elsewhere - it depends on the choices we make. We have chosen to have a free world, where people's choices matter and everyone has equal rights. What if that leads to people making stupid and shortsighted decisions, because people are stupid and shortsighted? Is that REALLY a surprise? If we try to establish an open market and a free economy, can we really try to wash our hands when that is the way it turns out? To every economical philosophy there is an upside and a downside and we can't snag the advantages without paying the costs. Easy as that.

And yeah, some more pictures from the adventures in Thailand. Someone mentioned to me that it is wrong to ride the elephants there, because of how they are treated. Imagine it being humans when guests come to the plantation, guests who don't approve of slavery. Would they be cared for, cleaned, fed and worked lightly, in order to pass the "inspection"? Because I really, really imagine that they will not care half as good for them if they only get to work in the jungle, dragging wood. So before you argue about us supporting the tourist industry, take a really good look at the alternatives. Take another good look at places like the Baleares and Africa and see what industry has brought to these places. Of course, that then depends on what kind of development we are looking for, but that's a whole other ballpark. 

I tend to review my views and opinions every time I get new information, or every chance I get to hone my perspective. And there is of course the matter of the human condition. Since the earliest days of human civilization we have treated just that word with almost religious fervor. To be civilized is the peak of human endeavor. One who is more advanced, I assume in terms of gadgets and technology and vocabulary, is "better" than someone who is not. Sure, there have always been voices that reject the mainstream and stand out in opposition. I will happily add my voice to that select few. What is it really that we are fighting for? We destroy the environment, we destroy the quality of life for individuals, we put insurmountable amounts of stress on the single person, all for what? Are we happier? Is there any other measurement by which we judge success that I am unaware of? Sure, we have more efficient organizations that strip resources and make money as never before. But is that good for US? Who are we really benefitting here and why?
It's like democracy. It's another one of those "must-haves" that can hardly be challenged, a concept that we send troops around the world to enforce. But let's get our concepts straight - are we fighting to end oppression (which is one thing) or to force democracy on them (which is quite another). Take a family for example. Is that a democracy? Hardly. The children are being cared for, and they don't get a vote. We tend to say they do, yes, but in reality they are not full citizens of the home democracy. They don't pay rent or act responsibly, taking care of the home. Sure, they can help out, but it's not the same thing. And they don't get a vote. Sure, we take their opinions seriously and try to involve them in decisions, but ultimately we act on what is best for them and the family, even over their heads if we have to. That is not democracy. But it is better, is it not? And for the children? Do we really assume that they want a full part? Do they want to be in their room and play, to be asked about things concerning them but otherwise relieved? To set the plates but have food purchased, prepared, cooked and served? Because I tend to think so. I think neither part really wants it to be a democracy. What do you think?