The backlash against overtourism • Hacker News Board

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#81

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 3:58 PM UTC

esotericn wrote: post #4

Mass 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'…

>We either eliminate these experiences, accept economic inequality, or watch the experiences be eliminated via attrition

You're not thinking broad enough! It seems to me that you view the determination of what can be done as derived purely from economics. I have money so I can do what I want, you don't so you can't, and you view that as natural. But economic determination of our freedom is as unnatural as the world it takes place in. Basically, why? Why should it matter that you have more money when we determine who can eat meat and travel? Check out Walzer's idea of complex equality, there are certain things that just shouldn't be linked to your existing wealth.

>unwilling to accept that the Universe _is_ actually a big competition, and either some people lose, or we all lose.

Hmm? The Universe isn't a competition! And there's no reason that some people have to lose. It seems to me that you just assert all these things as true and natural and unmovable and so from that follows this necessary society where many people aren't very free but you are relatively high up the heap and so are pretty free. But those things don't seem true or natural or unmovable to me, they seem completely fluid and it doesn't seem so wrong to take some of the freedom you enjoy away from you and give it to other people who have a lot less.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#82

Post by spadros » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:04 PM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #79

The elephant in the room, of course, is that tourism helps people think of themselves as part of something bigger. The National Parks, for example, help drive votes for conservation. If you've never set foot in nature, and you've never left your town, other places and their problems will always be somewhere beyond the horizon.

Yeah, I actually just got back from a trip to Spain last week. I saw the "TOURISTS GO HOME" graffiti in Barcelona and Granada. Very weird thing to run into when you're from Canada; we're all about new people and cultures and tourism bucks over here. I don't really feel guilty for wanting to see these famous historic places, though, and I'm not going to feel guilty when I go to Amsterdam in April and Japan in September to see their way of life.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#83

Post by Fuxy » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:04 PM UTC

Daishiman wrote: post #70

Fuxy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Tourism is a low value-added industry with little to provide beyond low quality service jobs. I mean, it's clear considering that Italy is one of the most visited countries in the world and yet things aren't so hot there. On the other hand, why do you falsely assume that acceptance of refugees has to have no limits or conditions? I'm saying that you can achieve a level of practical balance for two different areas on…

Tourism is a low value-added industry or not it's not something they can afford to loose at the moment. It's not like all the citizens of Italy are highly skilled workers that would be working a better paying job if they lost their current low paying one.

Because it doesn't have a limit or conditions the overwhelming majority of assumed refugees are illegal immigrants brought over on the boats of NGO's. They haven't used the proper channels and haven't been checked what so ever in many cases it's not even possible to know their country of origin forget about anything else.

If they have completed the proper procedures and done all the paperwork for seeking asylum fair enough but that's not what's happening now they just show up.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#84

Post by ip26 » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:05 PM UTC

esotericn wrote: post #4

Mass 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'…

At least currently, to me tourism would seem to be a distribution problem first. Ten thousand people visiting Paris is a much bigger impact than 2,500 spread across Paris, San Francisco, Venice, and Rome.

Limits, such as a lottery, might drive people to disperse more and find a greater variety of great places to see.

But then, I'm more drawn to cozy small towns than the Eiffel Tower.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#85

Post by Fuxy » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:06 PM UTC

kranner wrote: post #68

Fuxy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Humanitarianism or other altruism doesn’t have to pay off at all. That is not a measure by which to evaluate it.

You're right it doesn't but everyone seems to assume it will which is quite baffling.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#86

Post by conanbatt » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:10 PM UTC

esotericn wrote: post #7

conanbatt wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alumin…

One of the greatest enemies of economic reasoning is the engineering mindset. The engineer models after particles and atoms with discrete interactions and fails to account the organic element of humans trading with each other.

Human kind is exceptional at finding substitutes and while not everyone on earth can get a turn to go to Venice, there are literally thousands of alternative options, and the basic economic interactions will make the available to all.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#87

Post by School-Cotton » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:10 PM UTC

js2 wrote: post #25

esotericn wrote: post #4

Mass 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 is reductio ad absurdum, isn't it? You could implement a fair system giving everyone the equal opportunity to access (e.g. a tourist destination), even if not everyone gains access (via some sort of lottery). There's also enough places and opportunities on the planet that not everyone will want to do everything, certainly not all at once. So you could implement cap and trade.

What do you think reductio ad absurdum means? Your comment is worded as though it's some sort of logical fallacy to be avoided.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#88

Post by skh » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:10 PM UTC

esotericn wrote: post #4

Mass 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'…

The solution is to have far fewer people. If the population of the planet were far less then there would be enough resources and space for everyone without destroying the planet.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#89

Post by conanbatt » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:13 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #6

conanbatt wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Environmental issues are economic issues.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#90

Post by dagw » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:14 PM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #84

esotericn wrote: post #4

Mass 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'…

At least currently, to me tourism would seem to be a distribution problem first. Ten thousand people visiting Paris is a much bigger impact than 2,500 spread across Paris, San Francisco, Venice, and Rome. Limits, such as a lottery, might drive people to disperse more and find a greater variety of great places to see. But then, I'm more drawn to cozy small towns than the Eiffel Tower.

Ten thousand people visiting Paris is a much bigger impact than 2,500 spread across Paris, San Francisco, Venice, and Rome.

Have you been to Venice? 2500 people visiting the bits of Venice people want to visit has a much bigger impact than 10000 people visiting Paris or Rome.