The backlash against overtourism • Hacker News Board

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#41

Post by nine_k » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:11 PM UTC

mijamo wrote: post #31

esotericn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A distilled form: Tourism is not a special case. The same issue applies to tons of activities. We either limit these activities to a privileged few, or the activities cease to exist in their original form. Everyone loses in the latter case.

I think this is just wrong and some kind of modern malthusianism. IMO the logical outcome would be that the most trendy destinations will get more expensive, thus overpricing many tourists and regulating itself, and that it will open a new opportunity for many places which are not today super touristic. SO everybody will be a tourist, just not at the same place. It is already happening actually, you have much more to…

Raising the price = limiting to the privileged (moneyed) few.

Running a lottery = limiting to the privileged (lucky) few.

Creating a reserve / national park / protected area = limiting access to the privileged (science-related, or just well-connected) few.

There's no way that everyone who would not mind to visit a carnival in Venice could fit the city, if getting there was free and instant. This is a fact of life, and I personally am fine with it. People have different priorities, so let them (us) choose what group of limited few we can concentrate on entering.

For what I cannot afford to access, VR helmets exist.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#42

Post by robben1234 » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

I won't argue about off topic issues, but I don't think mass tourism is killing any sights. Ignorance kills natural sights, over advertisement kills human created sights.

Nearby Venice there's so much interesting stuff and small cities, a bit further are big cities. None of them really struggles with tourists as much as Venice. Maybe you'll see a huge line for Firenze Duomo but that's it, streets and other sights are practically lineless.

Why Florence struggles with Duomo and Venice struggles in general? Because they're famous all over the world for things they're struggle with. Everyone know about floating city of Venice, and Florence's Cathedral. Those things are being romanticised for centuries.

All Italy has to do is start load balancing tourists. Advertise other sights in the area, build easier public commute to other stuff. They have means to do so, they have tourism ad budget, they have 'city_name' cards which grant discounts to different sights.

I've been to Croatia this summer, they are struggling with Dubrovnik too. But most beautiful things are not there. Plitvice is like heaven and past 2pm I was walking there practically alone, Split's old city is as beautiful as Dubronik's and except 12-2pm is not crowded, beaches in Makarska and on Hvar are way more scenic and comfortable than Italy's and there's no crowds.

Go other places or rot in queues of over advertised sights.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#43

Post by Fuxy » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:13 PM UTC

Daishiman wrote: post #27

Fuxy wrote: post #14

I found the quote “tourists go home, refugees welcome” quite funny. So what their basically saying is they would rather kick out tourists that bring in and spend quite a lot of money effectively boosting the economy in favour of some refugees the government will have to spend a large amount of money on... and you wonder why the contry's economy is in such a bad shape when the citizens advocate shooting themselves in…

So... it's not all about money. You can refuse to accept money from sources which are really not all that cracked up (because the margins in tourism are not great actually) and accept people for humanitarian reasons. If you're not 14 or completely driven by greed you can understand the reasoning behind this.

Being a humanitarian is admirable but at the end of the day it's a luxury that may or may not pay off in the long run.

Just the same way you don't give your money to a beggar on the street when you can barely afford to survives yourself the employment of personal boundaries is important for humans and countries.

So given that Italy is not doing so well at the moment I kind of have to question their thinking reducing their revenue stream in favour if immigrants.

The assumption that all immigration is good immigration is not true.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#44

Post by nine_k » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:13 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #33

esotericn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A distilled form: Tourism is not a special case. The same issue applies to tons of activities. We either limit these activities to a privileged few, or the activities cease to exist in their original form. Everyone loses in the latter case.

Would your point stand in a world where every nation had a technology level of 2018 Canada, and a global population of 3 billion?

There is a large genre of post-apocalyptic sci-fi, it likely explores this possibility in several ways.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#45

Post by cr1895 » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:15 PM UTC

Fuxy wrote: post #24

knieveltech wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is good for the economy (short term) and what is good for people (long term) are frequently not the same things.

As far as I'm aware tourism is not a short term thing there will always be tourists coming and leaving this is an constant revenue steam in its own right. So I don't get what you mean.

>this is an constant revenue steam in its own right.

Indeed. Amsterdam, for example, is enriched by its diverse trinket shops selling "XXX" poof ball hats and crass t-shirts, and the options for stale pizza, cold waffles and Nutella crepes have never been so plentiful.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#46

Post by js2 » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:17 PM UTC

If you stay on Venice, you can explore away from the busiest tourist areas during the day, then at night when most of the tourists leave, have the city to yourself to explore.

Obviously a place can be loved or touristed to death. Groups with a large number of people arriving all at once (whether by van or bus or ship) exacerbate it. But everywhere I've traveled, even very popular places, if you can find a way to avoid the large groups and peak times, you have a much more pleasant experience.

My initial impression of Venice when I visited it four years ago was: "this seems like a place Disney would build if it only could." Perhaps Venice should take a page from Disney's playbook: treat itself like a theme park and limit total daily access with time-of-day tickets for the most popular destinations.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#47

Post by stochastic_monk » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:20 PM UTC

Tepix wrote: post #39

We need (very) high fidelity virtual reality to save the planet, making traveling superfluous. I'm afraid we're still far away from that development.

I would not choose to live in such a world. It sounds like a dystopia, d’après The Matrix.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#48

Post by 908087 » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:20 PM UTC

mijamo wrote: post #31

esotericn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A distilled form: Tourism is not a special case. The same issue applies to tons of activities. We either limit these activities to a privileged few, or the activities cease to exist in their original form. Everyone loses in the latter case.

I think this is just wrong and some kind of modern malthusianism. IMO the logical outcome would be that the most trendy destinations will get more expensive, thus overpricing many tourists and regulating itself, and that it will open a new opportunity for many places which are not today super touristic. SO everybody will be a tourist, just not at the same place. It is already happening actually, you have much more to…

> The brazilian cost could be much more used than it is right now.

If by used you mean "used up and robbed of any natural beauty to accomodate 'selfie experiences'", I agree.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#49

Post by 908087 » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:23 PM UTC

NegativeLatency wrote: post #15

esotericn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alumin…

You could take another method of transport instead of a plane. Bus, train, bike, boat

Cruise ships are already an environmental nightmare. We don't need more of that.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#50

Post by bunderbunder » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:24 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #2

I 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 wou…

A perfect society where everything is so great that everybody has the freedom to tromp all over the planet in an effort to occasionally distract themselves from their otherwise dreary existences.

There's a parable about what a deeply entrenched mind virus materialism can be hiding in there somewhere.