Interesting article
 

Linky link

It's talking about tourism rather than travelling overland, but does touch on some interesting points (a couple of which nibbled at me a bit, I'll meditate on that later)

Overlanding is just a form of tourism, let's not kid ourselves we're some sort of trailblazing explorers ;)

The same question was raised shortly after the disastrous Turkish earthquakes earlier this year. People were wondering whether it was morally acceptable to make a holiday visit to a country that was in mourning, but the Turks said firmly that they wanted people to keep on coming. Whether it was a tradition of hospitality or an addiction to the tourist dollar I don't quite know.

Same question for Ukraine I guess, though clearly you'd want to keep away from the hot areas. It's a beautiful country and arguably more in need of earning money than most.

Yes a very interesting article on a topic that its been very difficult to get any engagement on either here or on other travel forums. People travel for all the reasons the journalist lists (and the anthropologists record) but seemingly in some kind of ant like manner. 'Finding ourselves' seems to be a well worn track. As mentioned, those of us that travel on two wheels are not exempt from the article's observations. We might travel along slightly less trodden tracks but the end point is much the same.

Make your own choices based on available information.

Listening to news, Maui sounds like a wasteland. But having just listened to a weekly radio program out of Maui- The Blue Bus- I hear a very different story. Yes, the fires were destructive with over a 100 lives lost and billions of $$$ in property damage. But the radio host says the damage effects less than 5% of the island and hotels, restaurants, car rentals, airBnBs, fishing guides, scooter rentals all depend on tourists dollars and they want you to come now. The longer tourists stay away, the quicker those businesses fail and those employees lose their jobs.

And what about Ukraine? I have no desire to get killed in a war zone. But if they ever needed tourists dollars, it's now, right? Some say it would be disrespectful to visit. But maybe visiting is a show of respect and that they are not forgotten? I don't know. I have been to both places in better times. Would I go now? Probably not.

And there's the little village in Laos where they make spoons from the carcasses of unexploded bombs from the Vietnam War. I really wanted a spoon made from an American bomb. Some say buying spoons encourages the villagers to send their kids out to look for more bombs where they are potentially killed or maimed. Others say if you don't support their craftsmanship the village dies. I didn't buy a spoon. But every morning when I stir my tea I think 'damn, wish I bought that spoon.'

As for the article, I lost interest when it started quoting an expert who wrote a book about it in the 70s.

re Kyiv
 

Western Ukraine is still worth visiting. Hubby works with an NGO and was there (Kyiv) for June and July, headed back next week. His view is that you're more likely to die being hit by a car crossing the road in Delhi or Cairo (or lots of other places) than by a bomb in Kyiv. Everyone has to of course make their own determination ... But, to the earlier post about Maui, the media often paints with an "all or nothing" brush. Eg. riots in Paris? Sure, if you were in certain areas at certain times ...

With the very recent earthquake in Morocco, what are your thoughts about travel there? I'm booked on a ferry to arrive Tangier October 1st. The Atlas Mtns were definitely on my route. I'm still planning to go although I could be convinced not to. Some of my travel companions aren't so sure.

Curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks

First order business is to do your best to determine whether your presence will deprive locals or rescue/support organizations of needed supplies. This includes obvious stuff like food, water and shelter, but it also includes access to other resources and infrastructure.

When I travel, I have money in the bank, credit cards, and all sorts of financial backups that the local people perhaps don’t, so I’ll pay whatever I need to. I eat, use fuel, pay for shelter, access internet and other communications, etc. If there are shortages, my willingness to pay whatever I have to willl either lessen availability or increase the price of all of these—probably both. That makes life harder for less-privileged locals. I try not to do that, so if that’s what it looks like, I go elsewhere.

In other situations, I conclude my presence will not drive scarcity or price inflation, and might even help out by funneling money into the local economy. In such cases, I go.

That’s my basic approach to natural and human-created disasters of all types. It’s not perfect, but it’s a pretty good head start.

Mark