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

101–110 of 161 posts

Re: The Case Against Travel

#101

Post by arp242 »

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…

Travel/tourism is what I like to call "rudeness in aggregate". What I mean with that is that single individual people are doing nothing egregiously wrong as such, but above a certain number all combined create a strong negative ("rude") effect.

The most obvious example of this in context of travel are these huge cruise ships. No one is really doing anything wrong with that, as such, but craptons of tourists descending on your comparatively little city or town can become quite disruptive (as I've experienced first-hand as a resident).

There's quite a few problems like this, from small to large. Humans don't seem very good at taking "collective responsibility" for these sort of things, "because I'm doing nothing wrong", which is true, but also not.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#102

Post by asah »

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.

5000 years of history summed up as Panda Express.

This is _precisely_ why people need to travel: not to learn 5,000 years (good luck) but to appreciate that there's a helluva lot more than to a place.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#103

Post by synetic »

arp242 wrote: post #101
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…

Travel/tourism is what I like to call "rudeness in aggregate". What I mean with that is that single individual people are doing nothing egregiously wrong as such, but above a certain number all combined create a strong negative ("rude") effect. The most obvious example of this in context of travel are these huge cruise ships. No one is really doing anything wrong with that, as such, but craptons of tourists descendin…

It’s weird to see downvotes on this comment. I think it is without question that me traveling to, say, Yellowstone is just fine but not if too many people do so each year. The damage done would ruin the place.

At a higher level I think the issue is overpopulation combined with ease of travel. We cause too much damage.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#104

Post by kurthr »

arp242 wrote: post #101
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…

Travel/tourism is what I like to call "rudeness in aggregate". What I mean with that is that single individual people are doing nothing egregiously wrong as such, but above a certain number all combined create a strong negative ("rude") effect. The most obvious example of this in context of travel are these huge cruise ships. No one is really doing anything wrong with that, as such, but craptons of tourists descendin…

You might think of it as a tragedy of the commons.

Certainly, there are many who rely on the "rudeness" of the travelers for their livelihood. New Orleans comes to mind, when I say that people who live there may not appreciate the tourists, but know that many of the things they do appreciate (dining, arts, etc) would not be there, but for the tourist. Luckily, the peak influx can be avoided while enjoying the fruits the rest of the time.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#105

Post by nicbou »

shadow_broker wrote: post #18

I clicked into the article with a general mindset of planning to agree with the author. And while I generally did, the article felt a bit esoteric and like another commenter mentioned, the examples weren't great for me. I think my big issue when people tell me they love to travel is that it frequently ends up being almost a checklist, where the person has a whole list of "what's next" already lined up, like it's just…

I've been a tourist in my city for years, and I'm nowhere close to having seen everything. I haven't even some of the basics!

It's funny that I go out of my way to see art galleries abroad, but haven't seen most of the local ones. That's to say nothing of the recurring events, the rich history, and the millions of people I haven't met yet.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#106

Post by nicbou »

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.

My best friend is Indian. Many of my friends are. We talked a lot about India. I read a lot about India. I watched a bunch of Indian movies. I ate my fair share of Indian food.

And then I went there. Nothing could have prepared me for it. Seeing it for yourself is a whole different beast. It puts the whole thing in context.

Reducing a whole culture to a meal in a local approximation of its cuisine? Come on.

Hell, after living in Canada for two decades and consuming American culture ad nauseum, going there for a few days is always a mind trip. The magic happens in the details, not in the broad strokes. I wouldn't pretend to understand America because I ate at a fried chicken place.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#107

Post by spookie »

amelius wrote: post #82
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…

> hard to enjoy a sunset next to a gorgeous cathedral on a cliff when your city is 100 years old and flat Just get a pair of those Apple VR goggles. Is it the same? No. Is the difference worth destroying the planet? Hell no.

It's not the individual who should be blamed for the dire state of the planet.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#108

Post by samtho »

4ad wrote: post #55
samtho wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Analyzing an opinion piece through the lens of previously expressed opinion pieces is anything but an ad hominem attack.

The problem is that original poster did not provide any actual analysis or reason to support their assertion as this is not a famous or well-known enough person (at least within HN) to know automatically what their other opinions are on other matters. For this reason, I stand by my statement that this is just an attack on the author and not the ideas the author is communicating.

> It's the only possible way to understand an opinion piece.

No, the only way possible to understand an opinion piece is to read the text while keeping in mind what organization decided to publish it.

Let’s be honest here: this statement is just a ex post facto justification for the ad hominem. Perhaps a you’ve heard it’s cousin, the classic “no offense but, ,” or even, “I’m not racist, but .”

Re: The Case Against Travel

#109

Post by cratermoon »

arp242 wrote: post #101
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…

Travel/tourism is what I like to call "rudeness in aggregate". What I mean with that is that single individual people are doing nothing egregiously wrong as such, but above a certain number all combined create a strong negative ("rude") effect. The most obvious example of this in context of travel are these huge cruise ships. No one is really doing anything wrong with that, as such, but craptons of tourists descendin…

As a kid working in a fast food joint, whenever someone would notice a bus of any sort pull into the parking lot, the cry of "bus!" sent everyone into oh-shit mode. I imagine a cruise ship pulling into a small tourist town dock is similar but much larger.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#110

Post by nicbou »

soneca wrote: post #21

I don’t like to travel. I often say that I only want to travel when I have a purpose (study something, visit someone, etc). It does shock some people when I say I don’t like to travel, even when I complement that I don’t dislike either. The accepted answer is that everyone “love” to travel. But I didn’t feel represented in this article. I didn’t feel connected with any of the arguments. I think the author carefully w…

You might genuinely not be a travel person, but sometimes people just hate the specific kind of travelling they've experienced.

For instance, many Americans try to cram all of Europe into their two weeks there. They end up seeing a major capital with centuries of history in 6 hours. Perhaps they'd have a better time strolling around Poznan for two weeks.

I think that travel is a lot more pleasant if you reject the completionist approach and just try to have a good time while expanding your horizons.

Post reply on HN