Search results

Three myths of life on other celestial bodies are examined as potential motivators for space tourism. The historical myth of extraterrestrial planetary life was debunked by modern astronomy. The twentieth-century myth-like belief in the existence of stellar civilizations or extraterrestrial intelligence has engendered an extensive search for transmitted signals from such civilizations, but none have yet been detected. The post-modern myth of aliens visiting the Earth by unidentified flying objects, engendered new religious movements; however, it is silent about the aliens’ stellar origins, while the new religions do not encourage adherents to visit the aliens’ abodes. In the final analysis, none of the three myths offers an incentive for space travel and tourism.

Human fascination in the unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and alien paranormal phenomenon is rich in history, explored widely in popular culture and many personal beliefs exist across society. The tourism industry offers a range of places where consumers can encounter such a phenomenon. Reports continue to highlight the growth in consumers participating at UFO and alien tourism attractions and locations. Significantly, the purpose of this paper is to shine a light on the relationship between UFOs, aliens and the tourism industry.

This paper takes a pragmatic philosophical approach by embracing a multi-disciplinary analysis. This study examines a range of secondary data information, statistics, reports and research studies.

By identifying the current impotence of the UFO and alien tourism markets and the growing consumer participation in it, this paper presents a theoretical starting point in the form of a model, which maps the current landscape of the industry from supply and demand perspectives. This study should be seen as a stepping stone towards further research into the UFO and alien tourism industry and provide researchers with a theoretical platform and novel ideas through which to explore the subject.

The phenomenon includes an established eclectic mix of attractions and likewise tourist motivations for visiting are wide and diverse. However, the subject lacks academic consideration. Thus, this paper presents original research and timely discussions on the topic.

The future is often portrayed as rational, logical, and informed by the continuing achievements of the scientific and technological revolution. In similar ways, our own time was seen as marked by such advances by futurists of earlier decades. But at the end of the twentieth century, resistance to the claims of mainstream science and technology has grown to an extent unanticipated in these earlier appraisals. This essay argues that such resistance is liable to flourish in the twenty‐first century, and that understanding why this should be the case is important for studies of the future. In particular, this essay takes up the Fortean approach. This approach examines areas of human experience that are “damned” by mainstream science, and also examines the processes and strategies adopted both by those effecting the damnation, and those challenging it. The case being made is that although we can expect many of these damned phenomena to remain excluded – deservedly so in some cases – this will not always be the case.

This article examines the essence of the New Age movement: its reservations about the Judaic‐Christian heritage, its pantheistic/monistic orientation, its individualism, its search for the mystical experience, its skepticism of modern science and technology, its openness to androgyny, its ecumenicalism, and its prediction of a new dispensation. The article traces the New Age predecessors and influences: gnosticism, the Catholic potpourri, romanticism, the writings of C.G. Jung, and Theosophy. It speculates that the movement’s influence – given its individualism, skepticism of structure and organization, and hostility toward modern methodology – will be implicit and indirect. Finally, it notes the ambivalence of the core ideology, lending itself to both “progressive” and “non‐progressive” interpretation.