noel coward said it first

Now that the price of flying is skyrocketing, will the world start getting larger again?

Will travel become less egalitarian than it has become in recent decades, as fewer people can afford to do it?

And would that be, necessarily, a bad thing?

Obviously, I’m a big advocate for travel and all its mind-broadening qualities. Nothing more effectively shows us our place in the world, nothing more effectively creates hands across the water than sending entire bodies across the water.

Theoretically.

But since travel got inexpensive and more and more people started seeing the world, it seems that rather than crossing the road to see what’s there, we have started expecting other places to provide amusements. With tourism one of the most powerful industries in the world, “destinations” (as we call them in the biz—a horrible word) are knocking themselves out to provide sights and experiences they think tourists want or need.

You know—lots of shopping. Luxury hotels. Spas. Theme parks.

The kind of stuff you can easily do close to home.

According to research by Amadeus, a travel technology firm, globalization is among the most important trends driving the hotel industry. Although smart companies respect cultural differences, consistency across brands will be key to customer loyalty.

In other words, we want to travel to see the world, but we don’t want things to be too different from what we know.

And according to the Travel Industry of America, the number one pastime for domestic travelers in America is…shopping.

In other words, never too many t-shirts, cheap sunglasses and tsotske.

I’m not entirely above it all. In India recently, I didn’t object to the familiar and solid comfort of a Marriott in Hyderabad. The bed was divine, the shower had pressure. All very nice. But still, not nearly as memorable as two Indian resorts at which I stayed, where the beds were hard and showering involved a bucket.

My souvenir t-shirt celebrating the world’s largest wind damper in Taipei 101, at the moment the world’s tallest building, is a prized possession. As is my Liberace refrigerator magnet. I’m a sucker for tourist gift shops and take pride in seeking out the cheesiest souvenirs I can find.

I’m also not above popping into what some might call tourist traps—I have fond memories of the live mermaid show Weeki Watchee Springs in Florida.

Again, however, I am a kitsch-seeking missile. I’m not interested in the Mall of America—unless I can get a Mall of America t-shirt.

Mostly, when I travel, it’s just to be someplace new and to see what’s there. Sometimes I am hard-pressed to sightsee because when I’m in a new place, the place itself is the sight I want to see. Supermarkets can be as fun as museums, parks as interesting as churches, people-watching as absorbing as photo taking.

I remember a meeting with Taiwanese tourism officials in which one talked about a place (I forget where) that was developing something (I forget what) to attract tourists. When I expressed an interest in seeing the place anyway, she shook her head. “There is nothing there for tourists,” she said.

Eh? If a place exists, there is something there for tourists. There is the place.

That is why I travel, anyway. To see different places for what they are.

With all due respect to the restless masses, I think it takes a sophisticated traveler to fully appreciate the there of somewhere else. And I wonder—if travel becomes harder to do, will traveling dabblers give up the effort and stick to their own malls, allowing the world to just be what it is instead of encouraging it--with dollars, yen and euros—to become what they want it to be?