The backlash against overtourism • Hacker News Board

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#181

Post by ant6n » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 7:11 PM UTC

screye wrote: post #132

esotericn wrote: post #4

Mass tourism is being treated as unique when really, we're discovering that everyone cannot have a "good" standard of living. We can't all go travelling, we won't fit in the same place and we'll boil the earth doing so. We can't all have a car because we'll boil the earth. If we develop EV's and don't boil the earth, they won't all fit downtown. We can't all live in the country, that's not sustainable either. We can'…

> We can't all have a car because we'll boil the earth. If we > develop EV's and don't boil the earth, they won't all fit > downtown. > > We can't all live in the country, that's not sustainable > either. You hit the nail in the head. The only way for 7+ billions humans to live sustain-ably on planet earth, is to accept high density living and shared spaces. High density living in the form of apartments with common g…

You don't need extremely high density, and you can still grill on your own balcony (or little terasse). Theres an important density threshold which allows communities to be walkable and servable by rapid transit. Many areas of Montreal are comfortably above that threshold by using triplexes, even just duplexes.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#182

Post by moate » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 7:12 PM UTC

mijamo wrote: post #31

esotericn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A distilled form: Tourism is not a special case. The same issue applies to tons of activities. We either limit these activities to a privileged few, or the activities cease to exist in their original form. Everyone loses in the latter case.

I think this is just wrong and some kind of modern malthusianism. IMO the logical outcome would be that the most trendy destinations will get more expensive, thus overpricing many tourists and regulating itself, and that it will open a new opportunity for many places which are not today super touristic. SO everybody will be a tourist, just not at the same place. It is already happening actually, you have much more to…

It's not wrong, and you've reinforced his point. It's not about "going on a vacation" it's specifically "going on a vacation to ". Something will always be a limiting factor for why you can't have everyone go to a singular place.

Are there other perfectly nice places that you, guy who is in some way limited in your ability/means, could go to instead of the moon? Of course there are. But the moon is off limits to you because you don't have the money to charter the mission there, or the authorization of your government.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#183

Post by dsfyu404ed » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 7:14 PM UTC

mitchdoogle wrote: post #173

pyrale wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument reads like you believe that the proceeds of tourism are equally shared among the population. I don't get a dime if someone starts renting next door via airbnb to endless parties of nightlife addicted tourists.

He's arguing that that tax dollars should be divided among the city's residents, so even if you don't own an AirBNB or business, you will still benefit economically.

I grew up in a (tourism) town that did this. They had moderate property taxes (moderate property taxes on many multi-million dollar properties = huge windfall). The town squanders it all. The cops have every toy they want, the classrooms are full of overpriced hardware. I guess that's nice. The results delivered by the schools and cops are nothing special (relative to the rest of the state) though.

I shit you not (believe me, I wish I were), the town is looking into running it's own pet cemetery. If that isn't boondoggle waste I don't know what is.

Locals still pay high vehicle excise taxes, town dump fees are sky high (the rust belt city I now live in takes my trash away every week for less $$), there's a big fee for a (local resident) beach parking lot pass, etc, etc so it's not like the town is using it's windfall to ease the burden on everyone else.

I think expecting a suddenly cash flush government to fairly distribute it is a recipe for disappointment. I would be very wary of the "profit centers" (e.g. hospitality industry) achieving something akin to regulatory capture whereby they get whatever they want because they're the money makers for the town.

I'd love for municipalities to be able to make money hand over fist using tourism and then use that money to provide for their citizens (like Norway does with oil money) but I have near zero confidence that can happen without being corrupted by special interests and the well connected.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#184

Post by shakestheclown » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 7:16 PM UTC

wild_preference wrote: post #141

Tepix wrote: post #39

We need (very) high fidelity virtual reality to save the planet, making traveling superfluous. I'm afraid we're still far away from that development.

It's sad how travel, to most people, is just seeing things. No wonder so many HN comments are grandstanding about how they dislike or don't need travel: they aren't talking about meeting other people or experiencing other cultures. They're just talking about weekend travel packages where they're shuttled around to take some pictures. How incredibly boring. Your VR idea like saying you've been to Prague because you sp…

Don't worry the AI will be very realistic; it will be better than interacting with locals.

/s

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#185

Post by chicob » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 7:17 PM UTC

Mass tourism is the prostitution of places.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#186

Post by ant6n » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 7:19 PM UTC

moate wrote: post #175

conanbatt wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Let's assume you're from N'Délé, in the North Central portion of the country. Let's also assume you've got twice the national average in wealth, or about $800 USD. Which of those methods is "reasonable" for you to use as a tourist. The bike is clearly out. You can take a ferry across the Mediterranean once you get to it, but that's a whole thing. There is no train and buses would be...a lot. A straight car ride is 10…

You're using today's economy and infrastructure to make an argument of the inherent impossibility of using alternative modes of transport to flying in an argument about a possible future where everybody is rich enough to be a tourist.

...Consider that you can travel from Moscow to Beijing on a single train (or Paris-Beijing with a single transfer), it seems that traveling long distances by rail aren't inherently impossible.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#187

Post by ant6n » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 7:20 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #169

esotericn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that I covered this in my comment. > We either eliminate these experiences, accept economic inequality, or watch the experiences be eliminated via attrition (e.g. cars devolving into gridlock, tourism devolving into queues and displacement, ...). Specifically, the last part. If everyone is a tourist, what it means to be a tourist is very, very different. Consider: We strictly have enough jet fuel and alumin…

Do people go to see Venice, or to see Venetians? The easy, facile answer is to move all the residents out, turn the old city into Historic Venice Amusements District, build a commuter transit line out to New Venice (with no tourist attractions), and all of its civic services are then paid for by income from the tourist trap. Everyone has ready access to service jobs in the tourism and public safety sectors. If touris…

I don't get it. You're describing Venice as it is today.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#188

Post by dsfyu404ed » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 7:21 PM UTC

whack wrote: post #123

If cities really had a problem with "overtourism", there's a simple solution: 1. Gouge the hell out of tourists by jacking up the taxes on hotels & tourist attractions. Exemptions provided only for those with local IDs/passports 2. Redistribute the resulting tax dollars to all city residents Either you will successfully drive away all tourists, or you'll be making so much money that your residents will love them. The…

Europe is the global leader in regulation (I mean this as a pure matter of fact, not some kind of backhanded compliment). If regulating is feasible I'd expect them to be doing it in some capacity. This kind of begs the question as to why they're not doing it.

If someone has an example of a city that manages to use taxes/regulation on tourism to provide for the people who have to live there I'd like to hear it.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#189

Post by dionidium » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 7:23 PM UTC

narag wrote: post #75

maxxxxx wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It sucks. But what's the alternative? " Ideally we would stop breeding and keep world population at a certain number. In reality population will probably keep growing and we can only hope that technology will help avert a disaster.

It's interesting that the two comments that touch the overpopulation side are being downvoted. Why? Does the people downvoting care to explain? There's a huge contradiction here. Either you do "something" to control population or else all the measures to control climate change are stillborn. We are struggling with the current population!

Because the notion has evil and dystopian implications for the significant percentage of humanity that derives irreplaceable levels of fulfillment through procreation (and especially when one starts to wonder what you have in mind for those in that group who won't eschew procreation voluntarily).

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#190

Post by mitchdoogle » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 7:27 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #73

Loughla wrote: post #16

Honest to God, the best take on this theory was actually the Consul's tale in Hyperion explaining why he was against the Hegemony. The degradation of Maui-Covenant is just so very realistic and easy to visualize. Reading that as a child actually led me to travel less than I really want to as an adult. Instead, I enjoy making my small part of the world 'mine' instead of trying to make the rest of the world 'mine'.

It doesn't hurt that you can get a large chunk of the travel experience virtually now. Either watching someone elses travel vlogs (from just phone camera stuff to professional productions on various places) or using something like google maps lets you "tour" the world. If I want the sensation of being somewhere busy I could just drive an hour and walk main street in my closest city. I'm sure all the shops and attract…

VR can only ever satisfy the visual and auditory experience, which I would argue is much less than 99% of an experience of visiting a different place. Even if VR came along that could reliably emulate our other senses, you would still be missing out on a vital part of most experiences - interacting with others.