We live in a world of ‘up and to the right’. Much of the stresses and strains we are facing can be connected to that gap between expectation of continued possibility and a biophysical world of life that is generally not well matched to such rapid and sustained growth. And yet, this is what is wanted.
To take a precise example, according to the FT:
Analysts said that while Japan needed to encourage more people to come and spend to bolster the economy, it needed to ensure that visitors did not trigger the kind of local backlash against overcrowding and rising rents seen in some of Europe’s travel hotspots.
The ‘need’ for greater tourism is unquestioned, it is ‘good’ for the local economy and ‘good’ for the tourists getting their cultural experience™, everyone ‘wins’.
Consider the following chart:
Recall that this abstract chart conveys a rapid increase of real, physical bodies in real, existing places. The FT article notes about three quarters of visitors are staying in the major centres. The metropolis of Tokyo is larger enough to accommodate this influx of people, but in Kyoto it is much more concentrated and keenly felt in daily life.
In the space of approximately 1.5 years, Japan has gone from effectively zero tourists to all-time highs. Given the remarkable rate of change, it should hardly be surprising that this has caused some stresses, what I find more surprising is that this is considered ‘good’ and what Japan (or anyone, including many of these tourists) should ‘want’.
I’ll leave the chartbooking to others, I highlight this specific example as it distills a number of distinguishing features of the present conjuncture:
Scale matters. ‘Quantity has a quality all its own’, as the line goes. Similar patterns and behaviours take on different shapes and consequences as scale increases. Tourism is ultimately about physical bodies in specific places, and so it is not linear, at some point it becomes too many and too much.
Speed matters. During the pandemic, Kyoto was effectively devoid of tourists, a short time later, it is now at all time highs. It is a big, sharp shift in how the place feels. This is something Hartmut Rosa has powerfully explored in his work on social acceleration:
The constitutive link between the logics of acceleration and escalation continuously sharpens the scarcity of time through the juxtaposition in many domains of a quasi-exponential quantitative growth (of options, products, and changes) and a “merely” linear acceleration of the ability to process it.
Staying with scale and speed. These dynamics are reinforced and amplified by digital platforms, which aggregate, pushing more people to the same places. Again, too much, too many, too quickly. And for what end? What good? On a related note, Uber is using tourists as a wedge for pushing its way back into the Japanese market. Synergies abound.
Prior to the pandemic, Japan was chasing the sugar high of tourist revenue, ramping up its efforts to increase numbers, with a huge build out of hotels prior to the 2020 Olympics. The sector suffered with the collapse of visitors. But now borders are open and planes are in the air, it is straight back to more of the same. The manner in which tourist numbers are counted - the more the better - reflects the simplistic logic of using GDP as a measure of a country’s wellbeing.
Staying with the pandemic experience. There is much that can and should be learnt from it, but it appears we are keen to move on as quickly as possible, and instead fill our bellies with ‘revenge tourism’. Look at the chart above, and then think about climate change. One need not be a de-growther to wonder whether at some point we must acknowledge the possibility of limits on what we can do and access. That fossil fuel companies have so perfectly played their roles as villains allows us to heap the blame on them, disavowing our choices and responsibilities. Looking at that chart - does anyone want to travel less? Who is making those choices?
In a recent podcast on the topic of attention, Ezra Klein voiced something really valid, which is not directly said enough:
I think we have a lot of trouble talking about just what we think a good life would be. Not a life that leads to a good job, not a life that leads to a high income, but just the idea, which I think we were more comfortable talking in terms of at other points in history, that it is better to read books than to not read books, no matter if you can measure that on somebody’s income statement or not.
A world of 8 billion people in which ‘everything is permitted’, this is the experiment we are running. There is a vital need to again be asking questions about the good, to be willing to chance judgements. Part of this will be finding a way to talk about limits and responsibilities. And perhaps, at some point, just maybe, we all might have to consume and travel a bit less. But until then, maxi-max.