Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paradise Lost: How Tourists Are Destroying the Places They Love

spiegel.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: Paradise Lost: How Tourists Are Destroying the Places They Love

#131

Post by ahelwer »

notacoward wrote: post #126
ahelwer wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you're assessing this in a very abstract way, as evidenced by your "what if we took this logic to the extreme" examples. I assure you your perspective changes once you have skin in the game and are invested in an activity which is substantially diminished by the introduction of a large number of uncaring people.

> invested in an activity Odd phrase. "Invested" in your own amusement? And that trumps others' right to be in the same place? The ones with "skin in the game" are the residents, owners, and/or official caretakers. If they want to let the unwashed masses in, as seems to be the case, who are you to overrule them? Instead of trying to exclude people, maybe we should educate people about what not to do and why not, prov…

1. You can indeed be invested in your own amusement, through sunk time & money for equipment & training, a social network of others invested in the same activity, and many things less tangible.

2. "Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion.

3. Unless you're talking about a national park, the residents/owners/official caretakers of the backcountry are often nobody, or at most a volunteer trail maintenance org.

4. Educating people costs money. Providing facilities costs money. Hiring personnel costs money. Ameliorating damage costs money. These things all happen, but they cost money, and nobody is champing at the bit to pay.

The approach many in the outdoors community take is indeed everything you suggest, plus an information diet to concentrate use on trails which have seen a lot of work and can handle the traffic.

Re: Paradise Lost: How Tourists Are Destroying the Places They Love

#132

Post by sonnyblarney »

tluyben2 wrote: post #129
sonnyblarney wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I read literally in the last few days that a survey indicated 'Instagramability' was the #1 issues for Millenials in their choice of destinations. I think it was the Globe and Mail, sorry I don't have the link. That kind of threw me a little, but I think 'it's a thing'. There are many little tourist spots where 'selfies' are indeed a problem. That said, we've always been taking photos on vacay. So maybe it'…

My parents did not even bring a camera on vacation; they considered it an annoying habit of tourists and that is 30+ years ago. It had the sideeffect that we did not get flagged as tourists but as locals/expaths which is better usually. With smartphones all of that changed ofcourse.

I don't believe your parents were the norm, and taking pictures is generally not considered rude in any culture, really.

Stepping into the fountain, doing something stupid, mobbing people, stepping 'over the rope', crowding a public space to get a picture - this is 'rude'.

Taking a photo of the Eiffel tower from the sidewalk is normal.

Re: Paradise Lost: How Tourists Are Destroying the Places They Love

#133

Post by notacoward »

ahelwer wrote: post #131
notacoward wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> invested in an activity Odd phrase. "Invested" in your own amusement? And that trumps others' right to be in the same place? The ones with "skin in the game" are the residents, owners, and/or official caretakers. If they want to let the unwashed masses in, as seems to be the case, who are you to overrule them? Instead of trying to exclude people, maybe we should educate people about what not to do and why not, prov…

1. You can indeed be invested in your own amusement, through sunk time & money for equipment & training, a social network of others invested in the same activity, and many things less tangible. 2. "Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion. 3. Unless you're talking about a national park, the residents/owners/official caretakers of the backcountry are often nobody, or at most a volunteer trail maintenance org. 4…

> Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion.

Rights have everything to do with this discussion. You're trying to argue that other people have less right to these areas because they've enjoyed them less than you. One could easily argue the exact opposite, that you've exhausted your share and should stay away. It's not a very good argument, but it's still more morally supportable than the one you're making.

> the residents/owners/official caretakers of the backcountry are often nobody

The default owner is the government, the default caretaker is BLM. Or equivalent in other countries. They have the authority to determine who should or should not go on that land, for what purpose. You don't. Get over it.

Re: Paradise Lost: How Tourists Are Destroying the Places They Love

#134

Post by Spooky23 »

sparkling wrote: post #91
Spooky23 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap airlines are unsustainable and subsidized. I just flew Norwegian from New York to Europe for less than $75. Parking my car at the airport cost more than the flight. That entire airline is some sort of financing scheme and won’t exist in a couple of years.

Out of curiosity: what was the origin and destination airports?

Stewart Airport (Newburgh, NY) to Shannon, Ireland. They fly out of several US cities.

They run specials frequently and you can get flights to London, Bergen, Barcelona, etc. A friend and his wife were able to fly to London to see Hamilton last year for less than it would have taken to see it in NYC!

Re: Paradise Lost: How Tourists Are Destroying the Places They Love

#135

Post by ahelwer »

notacoward wrote: post #133
ahelwer wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. You can indeed be invested in your own amusement, through sunk time & money for equipment & training, a social network of others invested in the same activity, and many things less tangible. 2. "Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion. 3. Unless you're talking about a national park, the residents/owners/official caretakers of the backcountry are often nobody, or at most a volunteer trail maintenance org. 4…

> Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion. Rights have everything to do with this discussion. You're trying to argue that other people have less right to these areas because they've enjoyed them less than you. One could easily argue the exact opposite, that you've exhausted your share and should stay away. It's not a very good argument, but it's still more morally supportable than the one you're making. > the…

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Under discussion is whether there is a moral imperative for individuals to publicly disseminate their personal knowledge of locations of natural beauty. Again, rights are not at all relevant, unless you're talking about the right of someone else to my personal knowledge. Given your wild misreading of the topic I won't engage with you further.

Re: Paradise Lost: How Tourists Are Destroying the Places They Love

#138

Post by notacoward »

ahelwer wrote: post #135
notacoward wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion. Rights have everything to do with this discussion. You're trying to argue that other people have less right to these areas because they've enjoyed them less than you. One could easily argue the exact opposite, that you've exhausted your share and should stay away. It's not a very good argument, but it's still more morally supportable than the one you're making. > the…

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Under discussion is whether there is a moral imperative for individuals to publicly disseminate their personal knowledge of locations of natural beauty. Again, rights are not at all relevant, unless you're talking about the right of someone else to my personal knowledge. Given your wild misreading of the topic I won't engage with you further.

> ...whether there is a moral imperative...

Who said there was such a moral imperative? Not me. Not even you. I'm not misreading; you're misrepresenting.

Re: Paradise Lost: How Tourists Are Destroying the Places They Love

#139

Post by manicdee »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #84
Bucephalus355 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really appreciate you using the term “classist”. I think that term, and not “racist”, needs to be much more widely applied these days. That being said, I really enjoyed the author’s post. If anything, the people who are going to these places are the social climbing, upwardly mobile middle class, determined to burnish their brand on Instagram. Also the free flow of tourists is a problem that parallels a lot of other…

I get it. I love travelling and I'm soured at how overrun places are. But it's not a problem of the 'ugly tourist' it's a problem of just 'too many people'. I don't go to tourist destinations, I just go to places. Every French or German village is 'interesting' to those who don't know them. They are all full of history. Same for so many other places. The only 'non destinations' on planet earth are the suburbs, and pl…

The ugly tourist the piece refers to is all tourists being somewhere the wouldn’t otherwise have been except for relative affluence and the opportunity. Lots of people who just go places, which by definition become tourist destinations.

Re: Paradise Lost: How Tourists Are Destroying the Places They Love

#140

Post by trentmb »

ryanianian wrote: post #43
trentmb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why I got downvoted- why shouldn't these people be denied access to a certain geographical area and all its splendors before undergoing some, say, "naturalization" process?

Your original comment was snarky (with a borderline political bent given current US politics), and your followup doesn't really expand on the conversation any further than your first comment. If you're trying to say "tourist locations could require more of their visitors," you could elaborate on this point and say why you believe this would solve the problem that the article presents.

My comments were in bad faith, parodying anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Thank you for being patient enough to post the level headed comment you did.

Post reply on HN