The article was on the new nomadic rich and the theme was that it is exciting for some time but eventually there are downsides.
One commenter gave the upside:
Good article, but it stops at ‘what happens after a few years doing this’ -or- what does the ‘mid game’ look like and how realistic is it to maintain this lifestyle through to growing a family and into the ‘end-game’ stages.
Let me share my positive experience with such ‘pilgrimages’.
I have been living this life for >11 years now (since Jun 2001). The loneliness passes after 4-5 years and one learns to live and to be content when alone (differentiate between being happy about it).
After travelling and visiting many countries, this morphs into part-time and partially settling into countries – thereby paying local tax and learning the local language/dialect.
Around the 8th year of this ‘experience/knowledge pilgrimmage’, while maintaining (and osicallting betweem) 3 small homes (2 in Europe, 1 in China), this then morphed into my starting a family. My wife likewise is culturally and professionally nomadic – and so now too is our daughter (3 1/2 yrs old now).
Despite the predicted negative social and developmental impact on our family and daughter’s developments, we have experienced the opposite. This comes from leaving material and possessions behind and instead focusing on food, nutrition, family time and waking very early to finish our professional duties before the little wakes for the day.
In summary, the lifestyle has mostly positive and beneficial aspects associated with it (relative to a ‘normal’ stationary life). However, success has the requisite aspects of strict discipline of diet (to combat the effects of travel), never procrastinating, resisting physical and emotional challenge (i.e. loneliness, missing people/home), and pushing the envelope to learn and observe new customs and languages.
Also, being ‘okay’ with having few ‘unproductive days’ and associated activities.
Chuckles is not overly impressed, having “tingling feelings of disbelief about the aren’t we magnificent and godly world travelers article and they are right up themselves but in some respects it resonates.
Though hardly rich at any time in the journey, I’ve also had a “nomadic in fits and starts” lifestyle for nigh on 25 years and even before that it was a case of travelling back and forth between England and Australia. When young, it’s fine, it’s exciting and the vicissitudes of airport living are not a problem.
The key in both the article and the comment above was that he took his family with him, i.e. he had less need to form other lasting relationships within a given geographic area because he took his sustenance with him. My situation was quite a few years in one place, quite a few years in another, each where I formed bonds but for various external reasons, often govt induced, none could last in that place.
The internet and Skype in particular has revolutionized and made all this possible, along with mobile technica.
I still think it’s a good life and the only way I’d settle now would be to have a permanent partner but there are specific factors militating against that which I’m not sure I wish to outline as it might upset quite a few ladies. My current situation I see as temporary and that’s reflected in the way the abode looks – I could depart in a few hours.
As time goes on, the difference is that I now wish to spend longer in one place and travel palls – the travel bug is long dead in my soul. The permanent partner bug is still alive and well.
If everyone were doing this, then it would have a deleterious effect on nationhood and society as a collection of families roughly from the same culture. Also, the PTB are banking on traditional connections being lost and even though I campaign for nation, marriage and family, my personal situation is otherwise.
The premise of the original article does hold true, it seems to me – happy enough but for how long can it be sustained?
Filed under: Society & human issues