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

141–150 of 161 posts

Re: The Case Against Travel

#141

Post by madmax108 »

Honestly, I think I'd rather travel as much as possible, and gain first-hand experiences of places, things, and people who live and experience life differently than me, than write long winded articles in the New Yorker where I have to namedrop Pessoa and Socrates every two lines because I've outsourced my critical thinking to their writings. Honestly comes across like that angsty teen who just read Ayn Rand once and decides their entire personality is based on the book (Heck, many of us have been that kid!)

There's a hundred reasons why folks dislike travel, many of them EXTREMELY valid to one's lived experiences/circumstances, but this article is the most strawman-ny argument against travel anyone could conjure up.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#143

Post by cableshaft »

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.

You think that VR goggles aren’t destroying the planet as well with their manufacturing? Its also pretty bad.

I say this as someone who owns and enjoys my Quest 2 VR headset, in part to watch 3D videos of nature scenes and walks in various places. I just also know it isn’t without an environmental cost of its own.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#144

Post by Incipient »

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…

>single individual people are doing nothing egregiously wrong

Because you included the word "egregiously" I suppose technically you are right, but only on a technicality. A small "wrong" at the individual level becomes "egregiously" wrong at the population level.

- one person eating food in the streets in Japan isn't egregious, every tourist doing it is.

- one person being loud in a church in Italy isn't egregious, all of them is.

- one person touching some old Australian rock art isn't, every tourist doing it is.

When you consider your actions as a tourist, you have to consider a million people doing the same. Anything else is being a bad tourist.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#145

Post by ramraj07 »

asah wrote: post #102
ramraj07 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’ve never been to China but I know Panda Express is not Chinese food. You can get very authentic Chinese food in any reasonable sized city in the US. You can appreciate all cultures without having to travel there.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#146

Post by ramraj07 »

dnissley wrote: post #137
shocks wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve eaten a lot of Japanese food in London, but I just came back from Japan and the food was /not/ the same - it was so much better.

This sentiment is the "the book was better than the movie" of the travel world :)

When was the last time we thought someone saying that phrase was just insufferable though.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#147

Post by mozman »

brtkdotse wrote: post #135
mozman wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quite enjoy traveling and fly about 50,000 miles per year. I take offense to your sentiment. I have as much right to travel as anyone else. We need to live and let live.

> I take offense to your sentiment. I’m sorry I offended you. Do you have a better term for someone using several hundred percent more than their allotment of a resource?

The alottment is how much I can buy.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#148

Post by ulfw »

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.

Thankfully I am already old so I won't live in this world you propagate. The last thing I ever want is to live life dreaming of being somewhere rather than being able to go somewhere.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#149

Post by DiscourseFan »

I think it depends on the kind of travel. I think if I'm taking a risk where I could die, or something very bad could happen to me, then its usually a life changing experience (mountaineering, dangerous/unstable countries, general stupidity). But if I'm insulated from all that, and just bumbling around the touristy parts, then its exactly that, a tour. I don't learn anything about myself. Making love, making new friends, finding strange corners of the world, and having the time to be alone and think about yourself and where you're at: that is life-changing.

Re: The Case Against Travel

#150

Post by pipes »

arp242 wrote: post #125
pipes wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ordinarily I disagree with this kind of thinking, but I live in Edinburgh, for some reason I hate that the old town now feels like a theme park, though I'm not sure why. Especially given that during lock down I walked around it a lot and missed all the tourists. Makes no sense.

It's about the number of people. Less than 5% is fun and allows you to meet all sorts of people from various places, at 5-15% it's already a bit more mixed, and at >15% it becomes disruptive to every-day activities and the place no longer feels "yours". I'm just making these numbers up because I don't have a good way to estimate them, could also be ">50%" instead of ">15%". But that's what it comes down to. I think C…

Thats interesting about the visits to Edinburgh castle, probably very accurate. Feels accurate too. Around 2009 or so Edinburgh was pretty "dead" I remember work mates complaining about it, so much one of them moved to Glasgow. Now we have the opposite problem.
Post reply on HN