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

The Case Against Travel

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 161 posts

Re: The Case Against Travel

#31

Post by loopdoend »

probably_wrong wrote: post #27

As a seasoned traveler, both with and without purpose, I feel the author is erecting a straw man tourist that fits no real person. "No, I don't mean those who travel with purpose, nor those who actually appreciate the place, nor those who follow through with a life-changing experience, nor those whose year will now be more bearable thanks to the memories made during the trip, nor those who think they got something ou…

Nothing really matters due to the amount of coal being burned in places like China. Your vein efforts to reduce your personal footprint in North America are largely pointless.

Edit: Lots of coal defenders in here. It is absolutely ridiculous to be burning coal in 2023. But hey, perhaps the US could focus on reducing its own coal usage. Go nuclear! My point is that your trip around the world is a drop in the bucket.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#32

Post by mo_42 »

I like the article as it kind of reflects my thinking about traveling.

I used to joke about people who argued in favor of traveling that nature's laws are the same everywhere. So there’s no need to go somewhere else and experience something different.

Nowadays, I see very much the harm from tourism. For example, places in Italy and Portugal are becoming inhabitable for locals.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#33

Post by mxmbrb »

ramraj07 wrote: post #24
mxmbrb wrote: post #14

I can't see why so many people look down on traveling. I do not tell people unless asked (it is not part of my identity) but I traveled my fair share and it changed me a lot. The food I eat (the better half of my diet), the way I drive, my values for a fulfilled life, my willingnes to accept risks in life, appreciation and compassion for regions and many things more. Traveling is what you make out of it. If they walk…

Do you really need to travel to China to get an appreciation for Chinese food? That’s kinda the point the author makes.

But we are not rational machines. There is a difference in emotion and depth to buying a cookbook, or randomly stumbling upon a dish you (maybe unexpectedly) like and take the ideas of it home with you. One (of many) example of mine is british breakfast tea.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#34

Post by probably_wrong »

ramraj07 wrote: post #24
mxmbrb wrote: post #14

I can't see why so many people look down on traveling. I do not tell people unless asked (it is not part of my identity) but I traveled my fair share and it changed me a lot. The food I eat (the better half of my diet), the way I drive, my values for a fulfilled life, my willingnes to accept risks in life, appreciation and compassion for regions and many things more. Traveling is what you make out of it. If they walk…

Do you really need to travel to China to get an appreciation for Chinese food? That’s kinda the point the author makes.

Since you mention China specifically: I was in Beijing once. On my first day there I walked into a random restaurant and was given a vacuum-sealed package full of stuff I couldn't recognize. There were multiple spoons, a teapot (I think), a small plate... far from the chopsticks I was expecting. I eventually had to accept that I had no idea how to eat "Chinese style" and resigned myself to being "that guy" who eats straight out of the serving spoon.

I gained a new appreciation that day for what "different culture" truly means, and has made me more tolerant to those who break social rules without malice. I knew all of that before, but that moment really helped me grok the concept.

To put it in algorithmic terms (this is HN after all): one could be stuck in a local maximum and not known it, and making a small jump in a completely random direction might be exactly what's needed to get out of there.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#35

Post by hosteur »

mo_42 wrote: post #32

I like the article as it kind of reflects my thinking about traveling. I used to joke about people who argued in favor of traveling that nature's laws are the same everywhere. So there’s no need to go somewhere else and experience something different. Nowadays, I see very much the harm from tourism. For example, places in Italy and Portugal are becoming inhabitable for locals.

> For example, places in Italy and Portugal are becoming inhabitable for locals.

So tourists make the place for to live in for the locals?

Re: The Case Against Travel

#37

Post by natmaka »

loopdoend wrote: post #31
probably_wrong wrote: post #27

As a seasoned traveler, both with and without purpose, I feel the author is erecting a straw man tourist that fits no real person. "No, I don't mean those who travel with purpose, nor those who actually appreciate the place, nor those who follow through with a life-changing experience, nor those whose year will now be more bearable thanks to the memories made during the trip, nor those who think they got something ou…

Nothing really matters due to the amount of coal being burned in places like China. Your vein efforts to reduce your personal footprint in North America are largely pointless. Edit: Lots of coal defenders in here. It is absolutely ridiculous to be burning coal in 2023. But hey, perhaps the US could focus on reducing its own coal usage. Go nuclear! My point is that your trip around the world is a drop in the bucket.

A non-negligible part of this coal is burnt in order to produce things exported to North America (among others), therefore by buying less...

Re: The Case Against Travel

#38

Post by FpUser »

I want to leave my life with as little interference as possible from any moralizing types telling me how to do it. So my basic answer for "well wishers" - fuck off and leave me alone. You do what you want with your life (and I respect it) and let me do whatever I want with mine.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#39

Post by incrudible »

ziftface wrote: post #8

A long article about essentially nothing. Maybe it's just my circles but I don't know anyone who thinks going on a vacation is some transformative experience, so I don't totally understand why this article needed to have been written.

> A long article about essentially nothing.

This description fits almost every New Yorker article. Yet, the headline made you click. It does not matter if you read it, they do not expect you to read it, nor do they need you to - but there need to be some text following the headline.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#40

Post by westernpopular »

MengerSponge wrote: post #12

Or as Frank McCourt once said, when asked "Why do we have to read this?" by one of his students: “You will read it for the same reason your parents waste their money on your piano lessons. So you won't be a boring little shite the rest of your life.” It's very hard to learn how people in other cultures live without going there and experiencing it. Also, your low-stakes fumbles and challenges will make you a little mo…

Except people rarely ever do get a real insight into other people's lives and culture from just travelling, do they? You're not sharing your life with the locals, you're not friends, you're just walking around the city centre looking at sights and eating in restaurants. You're not going to work, commuting, having coffee with friends, going to house parties, etc
Post reply on HN