The backlash against overtourism • Hacker News Board

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#271

Post by SamPatt » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:49 AM UTC

paganel wrote: post #236

coldtea wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sucks. But what's the alternative? It's perfectly reasonable to drag people out of poverty. But the idea that everyone should be able to do the same things implies a set of "things" very different from what, say, the middle class families on my suburban street do today. Exactly. The "eternal growing of the economic cake" which the majority of the related policies are based on, ignores limits to growth (e.g. ener…

> ignores limits to growth (e.g. energy, rare materials, food, etc.) Lots and lots of people have tried to discredit Malthus and his reasoning in the last 200 years but we keep going back to him, he must of have been right in a way (if it matters, I think he was). The same way idealist political thinkers tried to discredit the writings of Hobbes and Machiavelli but it turns out human nature is closer to the writings…

Just because people go back to discredited ideas doesn't mean they weren't discredited.

Malthus - and later Ehrlich - made specific predictions about the sustainability of population increase, and they were proven flat out wrong.

Extrapolating a trend and showing disaster looming is much easier (and gets more attention) than recognizing that humans are adaptable and we shouldn't be so negative about humanity's future.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#272

Post by bobthepanda » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:51 AM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #265

bobthepanda wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments don't answer to short-term visitors, they answer to residents. Quite frankly, it's a good thing that Venice or Amsterdam or Barcelona are not pursuing a Benidorm-style frantic race to the bottom for tourism.

Indeed. And those residents would be greatly benefited by all the extra tax revenue and business that they recieve from tourists.

They're aware of that. Judging by the article, they also don't really care for it, because it has so many downsides.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#273

Post by domador » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 4:08 AM UTC

Personally, I hate the bucket-list-as-a-checklist idea, and have found the idea of visiting places and seeing things to feel pretty hollow to me, regardless of whether the sites are well known or not. Except for beautiful parts of nature and architectural beauty, visiting places does little for my soul.

I find cultural, people-oriented tourism, though, to be lifegiving for me. This is a bit surprising to me, given that I'm a kind of person that's lesser suited to it, as someone who tends toward shyness and also happens to be a picky eater (which is not great for sharing and enjoying meals in foreign countries). But on those times where I've been able to connect on a deeper level with locals, I've felt very fulfilled in my tourism experience. Having friends who invite me to visit the place they're now living in has been one gateway for me to be able to pursue this kind of cultural tourism (though I realize not every would-be tourist has personal networks that would provide this kind of opportunity.) Given our common language and culture and their local connections, these friends can help me enjoy their new home on a much deeper level much sooner than if I just went to that place by myself.

I realize that my tourism preference is personal, and that various other forms of tourism are perfectly valid and more enjoyable to others. However, if I were to generalize, I'd say that tourism that values, respects, and enjoys the places, people, and cultures involved for their own sake is commendable, while tourism that simply uses such places and people for narcissistic motives should be questioned. (These narcissistic motives typically revolve around showing others how much richer, more beautiful, more refined, classier, more knowledgeable, worthier, and ultimately better you are than them.) Loving a place, people, or culture might even involve leaving it alone, and enjoying them vicariously through other's tales, photos, and videos.

Speaking of motives, and on a somewhat-related note, you might enjoy this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V68SMFrpFt8 (First Person To Run A Marathon Without Talking About It)

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#274

Post by thedarkginger » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 5:30 AM UTC

js2 wrote: post #52

robben1234 wrote: post #42

I won't argue about off topic issues, but I don't think mass tourism is killing any sights. Ignorance kills natural sights, over advertisement kills human created sights. Nearby Venice there's so much interesting stuff and small cities, a bit further are big cities. None of them really struggles with tourists as much as Venice. Maybe you'll see a huge line for Firenze Duomo but that's it, streets and other sights are…

I stayed with my wife and two kids on Venice almost exactly four years ago this month. We avoided the busy spots during the day, and had Venice to ourselves at night. So even at places as busy as Venice, it's still possible to avoid crowds. We actually found Florence to be busy almost everywhere, even with lots of people still wandering around at night. The Uffizi was the one place that was impossible to enjoy, mostl…

It was actually crazy to me how dense the crowds were around San Marco and how, if we walked 10 minutes away, it felt like a small town.

Does seem to support the article's hypothesis that people are really determined to collect the marquee experience and don't necessarily feel motivated to do much else.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#275

Post by randycupertino » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 7:21 AM UTC

dsego wrote: post #259

jlangenauer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dubrovnik is one of the most awful places I've visited - literally everything is optimised purely to extract money from tourists. Want to walk around the city walls? That'll be €20! And if over-priced, mediocre restaurants are your thing, there's plenty of them too.

Split is becoming like that as well. Right now, almost all of the restaurants and bars in the center are closed until next season. It's all a big ruse.

Split seemed like a trashy euro nightclub scene for us. We much preferred Zadar, which was totally chill and reminded me of Key West with it's artsy, laid back vibe. Skradin was also amazing- I want to go back there with nothing to do for a month and decompress and write a book.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#276

Post by randycupertino » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 7:26 AM 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…

I don't even think "seeing things" is why most millennial travel. They travel to show off that they are traveling on their instagram and facebook feeds. To that end, virtual reality might not even cut down on travel at all because it wouldn't give people the status/bragging rights to show off their glamorous lifestyles.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#277

Post by hh3k0 » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 7:58 AM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #270

hh3k0 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I won't argue about off topic issues, but I don't think mass tourism is killing any sights. One could argue that, by accounting for eight per cent of the world’s carbon emissions, tourism is killing the sights along with the planet.

You could say that about any economic activity. A greenhousing effect would also not be harmful to all or even most tourist sites. Your criticism just seems like a blanket criticism of human existence.

> You could say that about any economic activity.

Any unnecessary and polluting economic activity that is actively killing the planet, yes.

> A greenhousing effect would also not be harmful to all or even most tourist sites.

I doubt that. If it won't be directly harmful in the next 100 years, there will be as many as 143 million people that'll be displaced due to climate change by 2050. Even if the tourist sites in question are in relatively safe locations such as Europe, you will most certainly not recognize them.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#278

Post by lxmorj » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 8:17 AM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #261

pmiller2 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just said the answer to the other problem: require a permit or business license to be an AirBnB host. Alternatively, "the market" offers annoyed neighbors another option: move.

The government responds to the will of residents, not short-term visitors. A ban is just the residents' preference to set the number of permits or business licenses for AirBnBs to zero. A government has no obligation to accommodate AirBnB. Saying moving is an option trivializes how difficult moving can be, and is about as helpful as saying, "If you don't like the current president, why don't you just move to another…

I find banning AirBnB a lazy form of governance, much like open container laws. "This behavior is correlated with undesirable outcomes, so it is illegal irrespective of the actual result of the behavior".

The other argument I see is that it prices out locals. Sure, allowing someone to own a 6-unit building and rent it out as a de-facto hotel will increase housing prices. But allowing locals to rent out their apartment while they're traveling has the opposite effect - it makes property more affordable by increasing utilization.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#279

Post by nicbou » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 8:38 AM UTC

randycupertino wrote: post #276

wild_preference wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't even think "seeing things" is why most millennial travel. They travel to show off that they are traveling on their instagram and facebook feeds. To that end, virtual reality might not even cut down on travel at all because it wouldn't give people the status/bragging rights to show off their glamorous lifestyles.

While I think millennials (that's like 30 years worth of people) do this, I don't think that's the only reason they travel, just an added perk.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#280

Post by collyw » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 8:56 AM UTC

arbitrary_name wrote: post #218

pyrale wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A totalitarian ideology is one that tries to creep into every aspect of our life, and rejects the exploration of alternative models.

Capitalism has crept into every aspect of my life. I cannot leave my house without people trying to put ideas into my head. I am not free, because of property rights, and there are many laws to prevent me from behaving in c certain ways. I cannot sustain myself from gathering food, because the capitalists have harvested the fish and cut down the trees. Your freedom is a prison. Don't talk to me about totalitarianism.

While what you say is true is seems less bad than the alternatives.