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

41–50 of 161 posts

Re: The Case Against Travel

#41

Post by pessimizer »

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.

China manufactures things to send to North America.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#42

Post by throwawaylinux »

thedrbrian wrote: post #4

This has a certain “You will stay in the pod and you will eat the bugs” vibe to it.

Well, the commoners will. The more virtuous and tolerant and rich among us will still get to fly their private jets and luxury yachts around to climate conferences. For the greater good.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#43

Post by FpUser »

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.

I don't need to have a "need". Want alone is enough. We did not "need" to do shit since we were wandering around gathering food some bazillion years ago.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#44

Post by brenainn »

It takes a while to really get to the point: "Travel is fun, so it is not mysterious that we like it. What is mysterious is why we imbue it with a vast significance, an aura of virtue". I think framing that everyone treats travel as this enlightening, broadening experience ("we") is wrong.

I'm not one of those people. I'm a filthy tourist that goes to museums and art galleries and goes home after two weeks happy to be back and I'm okay with that. I also know people that put months or years of their life on hold so they could travel aimlessly with a backpack and they seemed like they had a great time, and would probably argue they feel enlightened and broadened for doing so. So I don't really know who this article is against. There probably are some vapid people who fit whoever this is targeting. Don't know why this is written like it's uncovering some ugly truth about "us" and "we", whoever that is meant to be.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#45

Post by mo_42 »

hosteur wrote: post #35
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?

I guess Venice is the prime example: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/apr/30/sinking-city-...

Re: The Case Against Travel

#46

Post by valenterry »

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.

Yes, unless you live in a place that really has authentic Chinese food (and there are so many different kinds). And how do you really know it is?

So the answer is almost always: certainly. Especially if we talk about Sichuan food - very hard to find the authentic stuff imho.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#47

Post by crooked-v »

hsjqllzlfkf wrote: post #6

I agree with the main point of the article. I just disliked some of the specific examples. "You would t spend the entire day walking where you live" - some times I do! "You don't go to museums where you live" - I didn't until I moved to a city with amazing museums, and now I do!

On that note, I live downtown in a city specifically because it lets me accomplish all day to day needs and most day to day wants entirely by walking.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#48

Post by jjallen »

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.

This is like saying “Nothing really matters due to the millions of people in our countries that also vote making our vote worthless so don’t bother voting”. If we all thought like this the world would be a worse off place.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#49

Post by __m »

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.

Sure, if you ignore population size and accumulated past emissions, it's easy to blame China and sleep peacfully.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#50

Post by crooked-v »

mo_42 wrote: post #45
hosteur wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, places in Italy and Portugal are becoming inhabitable for locals. So tourists make the place for to live in for the locals?

I guess Venice is the prime example: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/apr/30/sinking-city-...

Venice has become increasingly unpleasant to actually live in compared to the mainland for basic infrastructural and engineering reasons, and tourists have exacerbated those but the problems would still be there without them.
Post reply on HN