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

51–60 of 161 posts

Re: The Case Against Travel

#51

Post by logifail »

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.

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

"when I was in Abu Dhabi, I went on a guided tour of a falcon hospital. I took a photo with a falcon on my arm. I have no interest in falconry or falcons, and a generalized dislike of encounters with nonhuman animals. But the falcon hospital was one of the answers to the question, “What does one do in Abu Dhabi?” So I went."

I think the author has bigger issues than travel.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#52

Post by skilled »

> The single most important fact about tourism is this: we already know what we will be like when we return. A vacation is not like immigrating to a foreign country, or matriculating at a university, or starting a new job, or falling in love. We embark on those pursuits with the trepidation of one who enters a tunnel not knowing who she will be when she walks out. The traveller departs confident that she will come back with the same basic interests, political beliefs, and living arrangements. Travel is a boomerang. It drops you right where you started.

This article couldn't be more insufferable if it tried.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#53

Post by whywhywhywhy »

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.

This is a terrible example because that’s one cuisine where the western experience and the China experience are significantly different. I’m talking even authentic restaurants not Panda Express.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#54

Post by pessimizer »

pydry wrote: post #19
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…

It's treated in a very similar way to many other status-linked luxuries which used to be the preserve of the upper classes and then spread to the masses through commodification. Theres probably a name for it. If there isnt there should be. Burberryfication? A lot of people who do travel I don't think actually enjoy it much but feel compelled to engage in status games. Meanwhile the upper classes and aspiring upper cl…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Tour

Re: The Case Against Travel

#55

Post by 4ad »

samtho wrote: post #28
golemotron wrote: post #10

After reading how the author views and handles her relationships ( https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/03/13/agnes-callard-... ), it's hard for me to take her thought seriously despite her credentials.

This is rather unkind, but I think you are aware of this. Opinion pieces, by definition, will be full of the author’s bias based on their experience up until the point when the article was written. We all go through the journey of life at our pace and guided by our own direction (but even that is debatable), and as such, dismissing some work with an ad hominim towards the author instead of the content of the piece is…

What work is being presented here, it's just an opinion piece. Analyzing an opinion piece through the lens of previously expressed opinion pieces is anything but an ad hominem attack. It's the only possible way to understand an opinion piece.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#56

Post by eetus »

The author has a point in regards to short trips (~2 weeks). However, I think if you travel and stay longer, the impact on your identity is far different.

I've been traveling longer-term for two and half years, staying at each place for at least a month when possible. I'm amazed at how much experience I can pack in a week, time that used to spent commuting.

I'm able to observe a lot of different people going about their lives, people I would've not encountered otherwise. I'm exposed to many ways of doing things and am also able to see great pieces of art and natural wonders on the weekend. These experiences have markedly shifted my general perspective. It just takes being away for longer than a week or two.

Again, previously this time would've just gone towards commuting or watching mediocre stuff on Netflix (which we still do occasionally but not as often).

In contrast, the things I and many of my friends used to do for entertainment when living in the Bay Area were more similar to the examples the author of the article mentioned-novelty for novelty sake and no impact on you as a person.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#57

Post by acidioxide »

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!

That's true. I already know every bit of my city, I have visited almost all museums, walked almost every street. If I have the opportunity to do the same elsewhere, I will.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#58

Post by 0xEF »

brenainn wrote: post #44

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 b…

I travel for perspective, so I am not sure if I fit into your description of "imbuing it with vast significance," but I'm interested in exploring that. I have a pretty strong policy of regular self-review where I need to make effort to experience people and places outside of my day-to-day or comfort zone. In the US, it is very, very easy to become hyperlocally insulated and use yourself and your immediate surroundings as a standard by which the known universs is measured. I find that travel, and the mild culture shock or fresh experience that comes with it keeps all that in check in a pretty healthy way.

I do have trouble applying any high virtue to that, though. It's much more selfish than that. Keeping my persective honed and dynamic allows me to function better as a human being, forming better relationships to get what I need, apply different ways of doing things to make my day easier, etc. In a way, sure, I guess that is broadening myself a bit, but I can't see any fault in that.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#59

Post by Loveaway »

Ugh harsh piece. Yeah you can argue fundamentally there's no deeper meaning to traveling then to entertain the traveler. That it is selfish and to the detriment of others. Certainly not completely untrue, but what a inhumane spin on the topic. This is nihilistic way of thinking.
Post reply on HN