The backlash against overtourism
economist.com
The backlash against overtourism
1–10 of 311 posts
Re: The backlash against overtourism
#2I read Arthur C. Clark's Childhood's End the other day, good book, but what surprised me was his naivety in describing the 'perfect' world. Briefly, the book starts with aliens peacefully invading and enforcing peace and order, while bringing prosperity.
He talked about how anyone could travel anywhere, and did, without ever reflecting that if you have a few billion people just travelling anywhere they wanted, it would be utter chaos in all the tourist spots.
It really underlines that he didn't even vaguely comprehend the incredibly privileged life he lived in (and I don't really either!), that he was so unfathomably richer than so much of the world's population that he couldn't even conceive the chaos of what he was proposing.
And now more of us enter that section of society (and still we are only a small fraction of the world's population) there simply isn't the capacity to accommodate us all.
Re: The backlash against overtourism
#3“To be a mass tourist, for me, is to become a pure late-date American: alien, ignorant, greedy for something you cannot ever have, disappointed in a way you can never admit. It is to spoil, by way of sheer ontology, the very unspoiledness you are there to experience, It is to impose yourself on places that in all non-economic ways would be better, realer, without you. It is, in lines and gridlock and transaction after transaction, to confront a dimension of yourself that is as inescapable as it is painful: As a tourist, you become economically significant but existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.”
-David Foster Wallace
Re: The backlash against overtourism
#4Mass tourism is being treated as unique when really, we're discovering that everyone cannot have a "good" standard of living.
We can't all go travelling, we won't fit in the same place and we'll boil the earth doing so.
We can't all have a car because we'll boil the earth. If we develop EV's and don't boil the earth, they won't all fit downtown.
We can't all live in the country, that's not sustainable either.
We can't all eat high quality meat as often as we want. We'll boil the earth and it'll require too much farmland, anyway.
I could go on.
We either eliminate these experiences, accept economic inequality, or watch the experiences be eliminated via attrition (e.g. cars devolving into gridlock, tourism devolving into queues and displacement, ...).
I find this to be an odd aspect of certain political movements at the moment - unwilling to accept that the Universe _is_ actually a big competition, and either some people lose, or we all lose.
It sucks. But what's the alternative?
It's perfectly reasonable to drag people out of poverty.
But the idea that everyone should be able to do the same things implies a set of "things" very different from what, say, the middle class families on my suburban street do today.
Re: The backlash against overtourism
#5Mass tourism is being treated as unique when really, we're discovering that everyone cannot have a "good" standard of living. We can't all go travelling, we won't fit in the same place and we'll boil the earth doing so. We can't all have a car because we'll boil the earth. If we develop EV's and don't boil the earth, they won't all fit downtown. We can't all live in the country, that's not sustainable either. We can'…
This view of things doesnt take into account that an absurdly higher number of people can travel and see multiple countries in their life, which was impossible 50 years ago.
It is absolutely possible for every earth citizen to become a tourist, there is no economic impediment to do it.
Re: The backlash against overtourism
#6Mass tourism is being treated as unique when really, we're discovering that everyone cannot have a "good" standard of living. We can't all go travelling, we won't fit in the same place and we'll boil the earth doing so. We can't all have a car because we'll boil the earth. If we develop EV's and don't boil the earth, they won't all fit downtown. We can't all live in the country, that's not sustainable either. We can'…
This view of things doesnt take into account that an absurdly higher number of people can travel and see multiple countries in their life, which was impossible 50 years ago. It is absolutely possible for every earth citizen to become a tourist, there is no economic impediment to do it.
He talked about environmental issues, not economic ones.
Re: The backlash against overtourism
#7Mass tourism is being treated as unique when really, we're discovering that everyone cannot have a "good" standard of living. We can't all go travelling, we won't fit in the same place and we'll boil the earth doing so. We can't all have a car because we'll boil the earth. If we develop EV's and don't boil the earth, they won't all fit downtown. We can't all live in the country, that's not sustainable either. We can'…
This view of things doesnt take into account that an absurdly higher number of people can travel and see multiple countries in their life, which was impossible 50 years ago. It is absolutely possible for every earth citizen to become a tourist, there is no economic impediment to do it.
I believe that I covered this in my comment.
> We either eliminate these experiences, accept economic inequality, or watch the experiences be eliminated via attrition (e.g. cars devolving into gridlock, tourism devolving into queues and displacement, ...).
Specifically, the last part. If everyone is a tourist, what it means to be a tourist is very, very different.
Consider:
We strictly have enough jet fuel and aluminium and so on to fly everyone about all over. What happens if we actually do that?
Venice is bloody underwater, that's what.
That said - I'm an optimistic physicist and engineer. Let's fix this, shall we?
Right, I've invented and scaled electric aeroplanes and fusion power.
Let's try again. What happens if we actually do that?
Venice has more tourists than people.
Bugger.
Re: The backlash against overtourism
#8It will be interesting to see how cities will cope with it. I am sure the amount of tourists will continue to rise significantly over the next decades - just think about much of India, Africa and South America entering global tourism. So Venice, Amsterdam, London, Barcelona, Paris, New York etc will maybe have 10 times the tourists than today and the cities will need a concept how to deal with it.
Re: The backlash against overtourism
#9Mass tourism is being treated as unique when really, we're discovering that everyone cannot have a "good" standard of living. We can't all go travelling, we won't fit in the same place and we'll boil the earth doing so. We can't all have a car because we'll boil the earth. If we develop EV's and don't boil the earth, they won't all fit downtown. We can't all live in the country, that's not sustainable either. We can'…
>Mass tourism is being treated as unique when really, we're discovering that everyone cannot have a "good" standard of living.
I've read this 5 times. I can't figure out the relation between tourism and everything else in your post. Are you just expounding on the fact that not everyone lives an equal life in the world or is there a greater point I'm missing?
Re: The backlash against overtourism
#10I am from Barcelona, even that I have not lived there for the past 5 years.
Governments have been caring to maximize business profit. And in that pursuit, they have created cities where one cannot live anymore.
Unregulated tourism has make things worse. The rise of Airbnb and similar schemes are punishing buildings in popular neighbourhoods that instead of a place to live with your family they become a business without rules. And any regulation is sold as "any business" and "communism" by the usual internet trolls. Problems are so bad in some neighbourhoods that even that push-back from online discussions and the business themselves is overridden by voters.
Tourism is a very good thing. And that thought has not changed in the city. Abuses should not be tolerated, thou. That you bring money to the economy is not an excuse to be above the rules. Citizens first.