
Tourism Is Overwhelming the World's Top Destinations - pseudolus
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-12/tourism-is-overwhelming-the-world-s-top-destinations
======
tdaltonc
Here's a proposal for fixing this. I'll use the national parks as an example.

Yosemite is hugely popular and we need to find some just way to limit the
number of people going in. There are three ways to visit Yosemite. PATRON
ticket, MERIT ticket, and LOTTERY ticket. All are non-transferable.

The PATRON tickets are auctioned off. This raises a huge amount of money to
maintain the parks and make the other tickets completely free.

The MERIT tickets are earned by visiting the less popular parks. You get park-
points and eventually you earn enough to earn access to the really cool stuff.
And you've also learned to appreciate what you're going to be looking at. If
you've climbed some of the less popular climbing spots in the US, it should be
easy for you to get access to half dome.

The LOTTERY tickets are free and open to everyone. Enter as often as you want.
The lotteries are far enough out that you'll have time to plan around winning.

There are a lot of persnickety details, but I trust the Parks Service to be
competent.

The same basic system could be used to fix basically any over-accessed place
(famous galleries, Everest, Galapagos, etc). I think that everyone can get
behind at least one of these principles (patronage, merit, persistence) and
the vast majority of people can get behind the idea of needing the balance all
three.

~~~
Loughla
The problem with that is that many, if not all, people have the attitude of:
that is a publicly funded good, paid for in part with my money, so why
shouldn't I have access to it?

What you seem to argue for with this is the privatization of our public
spaces. Otherwise how do you ensure access to the publicly funded public good?
Or am I way off base with this?

~~~
wasdfff
At least with parks, they are an area of conservation before they are a
tourist attraction. You are paying for this land to be conserved in its
natural state. Traffic to the park must therefore be limited to ensure the
park is actually preserved and not destroyed by human activity. Visiting the
park is a privilege, not a right. The right is that the park exists at all.

~~~
casefields
You need to watch Ken Burns The National Parks: America's Greatest Idea
because the parks are to be conserved for future generations in hopes that
they can enjoy the public good just as we get to.

------
klodolph
Returned home recently, saw a local park / nature preserve. There are signs
everywhere telling people to stay on the trail. I have never seen so many
people disregard them in my life.

When I was a kid, you would go to the educational programs at the park and
they teach you about the history of the area, the ecosystem, and the amount of
damage that people can do to the ecosystem. Lots of locals will go through
this kind of thing. But now there are so many tourists, people stomping
through meadows that grow back _very_ slowly. Feeding wildlife. Etc. How do
you educate people if they’re only visiting for three days out of their entire
life?

~~~
rhacker
People these days have very little regard for anything outside their
headspace. People don't care about others anymore. I kinda feel like schools
need to literally start teaching the golden rule - because they're not getting
it from mommy and daddy.

~~~
shados
> People don't care about others anymore

Which was inevitable. Rule enforcement (all kinds, not just the police) works
on the premise that most people will be reasonable and follow the rules, or
social pressure will handle it.

But then you throw in "no one likes a snitch!", "This rule isn't enforced so
why should I follow it?", "They're trying to enforce this rule I don't like,
they have better things to do!", and you end up with a perfect storm: We
shouldn't care about anything that won't get you in trouble, and you shouldn't
get in trouble for anything. Push that to its limit and you get some extreme
case of individualism.

You mention schools, but schools are basically no longer allowed to enforce
anything else they get sued by some entitled parent.

~~~
Scoundreller
It doesn’t help when those rules result in you getting a ticket for going
through a red light 0.1s after it turned red.

And not because you were driving, but because you let someone else borrow your
car.

Or you end up in some bureaucratic black hole where the law says you can go to
either of these 2 agencies for a service, and both agencies (in)directly tell
you to go to the other.

~~~
shados
Yup, that's part of the issue.

Essentially we're in a world where we have rules, but how they are enforced,
used, interpreted, is a huge judgement call. I mean, there's always going to
need some level of interpretation, because those who author the rules aren't
perfect. But the rules are frequently written with a heavy disconnect when it
comes to said enforcement. So each and everyone of us is taught to start
interpreting them in our own individual ways (and "us" includes the cops).
That doesn't scale so hot at several hundreds million people+

~~~
Scoundreller
In the former case, the law was written so it’s impossible to fight it (can’t
even compel the officer that signed it to attend).

And in the latter, the agencies investigate themselves, so unless it’s big
enough to sue them in court, you won’t create change. And they know that:
create lots of little problems for the public, and you can get away with it.

------
tompccs
One of the drivers of tourist congestion is the point-to-point nature of air-
travel. In the past, travel used to be something for the elite, not only
because it was expensive, but because it would take months of travel to
actually reach many of the places. Your travel time would be spread over many
intermediate places, all of which are now flown over by planes.

Whilst the volume of tourists is a problem, the behaviour of booking a week
(or less!) off work to fly halfway across the world and back is of course
going to concentrate tourists around "hot" destinations.

I predict that long, slow, possibly "eco" trips will become fashionable as a
new way to signal wealth (much in the way that travel to far-flung corners of
the Earth used to).

~~~
Scoundreller
Wait until you see what happens when Americans get 4-6 weeks of holiday per
year like the rest of the world

~~~
overcast
Absolutely nothing. They'll either not use it like now, or not be able to
afford, like now.

~~~
adventured
> or not be able to afford, like now.

The top 250 million adult Americans are richer than the top 250 million adults
in Europe, Asia, Latin America, or Africa. So what are you talking about?

The median American is far richer - with a far higher income and disposable
income - than the median in Europe, Asia, Latin America or Africa. It's not
remotely close in fact.

The median in Europe for example, pegs you down toward an income of just
$12,000 and a net worth of only a few thousand dollars.

The US is a country of 330 million people where the median person is wealthier
than Germany or Sweden. The US is by a considerable margin the wealthiest per
capita large population in world history.

~~~
wasdfff
In the US four in ten people can’t come up with $400. People are paid a lot
more than in other countries, but retain hardly any wealth. A large percent of
Americans are paycheck to paycheck, meaning once housing/food/healhcare/other
essential unmovable costs are paid for, there is no money left to save for
anything. America might have the greatest level wealth inequality in the
world.

~~~
DuskStar
> In the US four in ten people can’t come up with $400.

I'm pretty sure this is due to some really poor surveys, not the actual state
of things. There's a number of debunkings, too. [0]

> America might have the greatest level wealth inequality in the world.

According to Wikipedia, the gini wealth coefficient list (as of 2000) goes
Namibia, Zimbabwe, _Denmark_ , the world as a whole, Switzerland, and then the
US. [1] Most people would not consider Denmark to be a particularly unequal
country. For more recent numbers it seems that Russia, India, Thailand,
Indonesia, Brazil and China all have a higher proportion of wealth in the
hands of the 1% than the US does. [2] That's as of 2016, and I don't think the
US was able to 'catch up' _that_ much in the past 3 years.

0:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-40...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-400-emergency-
expense-story-is-wrong)

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribut...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth)

2: [https://www.statista.com/chart/6908/the-worlds-most-
unequal-...](https://www.statista.com/chart/6908/the-worlds-most-unequal-
countries/)

------
ChuckNorris89
It used to be that only westerners had the means to afford traveling across
the world but recently, with the rising income in China and India, they can
too and, at least in Europe, you can see this.

Although I'm slight worried for the coping ability of highly touristic places,
I think it's great that tourism is becoming more accessible to everyone.

There's no reason why visiting famous cultural places should be reserved for
the wealthy only. The wealthy have found new places to hide away from the
_great unwashed_ anyway.

~~~
jacquesm
> There's no reason why visiting famous cultural places should be reserved for
> the wealthy only.

Maybe it should be reserved for nobody at all? Or some lottery system
determining who gets to play tourist? All this jetting about to take the
1000,000th identical picture of some landmark just to say you've been there
too is a very high cost to both the destinations and the planet as a whole.

~~~
jfnixon
I'm so old I can remember when people were encouraged to travel and buy
experiences rather than goods, to meet different people and cultures, live
outside one's comfort zone, and broaden one's horizons.

Now it is stay home, don't travel, don't eat meat, don't have kids, don't buy
experiences or things. Ain't progress wonderful?

~~~
jacquesm
Not everything scales. If you have 7 billion people that take two two week
package holidays per year the planet will collapse. Now, we're not quite there
yet but the strain is showing in many places and if we don't stop this then
_there won 't be any tourist destinations left to visit_.

Note that the number of people that make meaningful connections with the
locals compared to the number of tourists is vanishingly small. You just can't
do that when you fly in on Sunday evening and leave again a few days later.
All you get to do is to rush from one photogenic site to another, maybe visit
a museum and eat at the local versions of the chain stores from somewhere
else.

~~~
tristor
Your second paragraph is on point. This is why when I travel I go to a new
city for a month or more, and I live in exactly the type of places people are
deriding in this thread (AirBnB) to live more like a local, not in a hotel. I
am not there to be a tourist, although certainly my visa is a tourism visa and
I'm counted in those numbers.

There's a huge difference in ecological impact and cultural impact of package
tours where you have ~30 people following one guide with a flag sticking out
of their back vs one person spending month+ in a place and minimizing their
ecological impact. The one thing I haven't been able to do yet is stop flying,
it's required both for work and for pleasure, but I do buy carbon offsets for
air travel.

I just don't know how to clearly separate the types of activities I'm talking
about without it automatically coming off as elitist when these types of
discussions happen... it's not really fair, but the reality is that the
Western world had enough various constraints that helped make tourism if not
perfectly sustainable, relatively so. With Asia coming up we've added
literally billions of potential new tourists to the pot and that's just not
scalable. It's even very obvious to me, as I try to visit places which are not
tourist destinations... and I visit off-season. I don't really care for
tourism itself, I want to meet people and discover food. I go to these places
to find not English dual-language, but Mandarin Chinese...

~~~
wasdfff
The impact can be more subtle. Personally I’m more worried about the
individuals who don’t know anything about conservation going into these areas.
Usually the tour groups follow a set route, limiting their impact. The grand
canyon likely prefers you stay in the disneyland of the south rim where there
are park rangers, trashcans, bathrooms, shuttles, and roads, rather than hike
offtrail in the canyon and damage the more pristine ecology found there.

------
vfc1
I think it's not just tourism, it's traveling in general. We need to stop
taking the car or the plane like it's nothing for the environment, and taxes
are the only way, we can't rely on people's common sense.

A single roundtrip from New York to Los Angeles a year offsets the combined
effort of going vegetarian and recycling for example -
[https://shameplane.com/?fromCity=New%20York&fromCode=JFK&toC...](https://shameplane.com/?fromCity=New%20York&fromCode=JFK&toCity=Los%20Angeles&toCode=LAX&roundtrip=true&typeofseat=3)

I've gone to many of those places: The Egypt Pyramids, Paris, London, Austria,
Amsterdam, Crete, Cuba, Japan. After a while it becomes all the same, it all
feels like a tourist trap everywhere you go, most likely because it is.

Seeing natural wonders like the canary islands, it's probably still worth it,
but visiting man-made cities with their tourist trap monuments? No thank you.

~~~
nullwasamistake
IMO this is an elitist point of view. Taxing will only serve to make travel a
luxury for the elite, as it once was.

The only reason tourism has increased so much is because it's become
affordable to the middle class.

The economy will adapt. There will be more tourist destinations to cancel out
the increased crowds, with time.

Flying is a great way to travel in an environmentally friendly way. It's far
less wasteful per mile than driving.

~~~
mattlutze
Airplanes produce more greenhouse gas emissions per km than other travel
methods. Over a nominal 1100 km, a generic passenger liner will produce 0.17
metric ton, whilst trains contribute a quarter to less than a tenth that, and
coach buses a fifth. The same distance would be like driving a petrol car
averaging about 36 US mpg or 6.5 L/100 km -- but your family of 4, let's say,
would split that emissions impact in the car, where in the airplane it'd be
4x.

The notion that jetsetting should be a right of the masses is a myth built on
future generations paying for the damage mass flying does today. Thinking
ubiquitous travel should be cheap and trivially available may actually be the
elitist view, as the elite or wealthy will be the only ones able to protect
their way of life as the natural environment changes and cities become more
difficult to live or work in.

Edit: I used
[https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx](https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx),
who describe their methodology here:
[https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculatorfaqs.html](https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculatorfaqs.html)

~~~
Nasrudith
I think your math is off - planes are usually loaded with people and per
person mile far better than a mere roadtrip. You should divide the airplane
emissions by at least 70. Fluid friction vs rolling helps a lot.

While trains and fully loaded buses may be superior it is still far from the
worst evil for long distances.

~~~
mattlutze
You can have a look at the calculations if you'd like. There's a deceptively
high amount of emissions with jet kerosene, even with the planes loaded up.

[https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx](https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx)

------
landonxjames
In one of David Foster Wallace's essays[0] I read when I was younger he said:

> 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.

That has always stuck with me and made me realize the delicate and potentially
destructive nature of being a tourist.

[0] [https://harpers.org/wp-
content/uploads/2008/09/HarpersMagazi...](https://harpers.org/wp-
content/uploads/2008/09/HarpersMagazine-1996-01-0007859.pdf)

Edit: I misremembered which essay this quote was from. It is actually in a
footnote on page 3 of this one
[http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf](http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf)

Leaving the original link up because it is still a great read about some of
the potential horrors of mass tourism.

~~~
baxtr
I think that is a very negative notion. It completely omits the part where
people meet each other, talk and learn. It’s probably difficult to measure but
I bet that tourism is making the world a more peaceful place.

~~~
chasingthewind
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment and I'd like to expand on it.

I think the DFW quote is actively damaging because it paints a picture of
certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right
rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism.

I think it's only a very short distance from that kind of argument to the
argument that many use to suggest that immigrants fleeing dangerous and awful
places are an infestation to be eliminated.

Both legally and practically speaking there are ample reasons both to limit
tourism and to limit immigration in reasonable, fair, and thoughtful ways.
Some resources are more limited than others. The fact that some groups of
people find themselves in possession of a place or a resource that others
appreciate or even covet does not convey on them some kind of moral
superiority over the rest of humanity.

Having an intelligent conversation about the practical limits of tourism and
immigration is important and welcome. Demonizing those who want to experience
different cultures, different climates, and different geography is completely
unhelpful.

I say this as someone who _hates_ to travel and who cannot stand going to a
tourist destination that's overflowing with people.

But I refuse to demonize people that like or tolerate that kind of experience
the same way I refuse to demonize people who are seeking a better life for
themselves more permanently.

~~~
core-questions
> it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of
> people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental
> mechanism

If my ancestors built a place, and raised their families there to continue
taking care of it for generations, in what sense does it not belong to me and
my extended family? Nothing about that process was "accidental", though it may
have some factor of "randomness" about it depending on your personal
epistemology.

> I think it's only a very short distance from that kind of argument to the
> argument that many use to suggest that immigrants fleeing dangerous and
> awful places are an infestation to be eliminated.

You've skipped a thousand steps. When the caretakers of a place welcome people
in, and then discover they pose a problem, it's not unreasonable for them to
wish to mitigate the issue. If this means that an unlimited number of refugees
or immigrants cannot be accepted because maintaining the same standard of
living would be impossible, it is not unreasonable to refuse new entrants. By
no means are we beholden to support every other human being, even if we
empathize for their plight.

> The fact that some groups of people find themselves in possession of a place
> or a resource that others appreciate or even covet does not convey on them
> some kind of moral superiority over the rest of humanity.

It's not moral superiority; it's moral duty, to understand and uphold the
works of the past that have lead to greatness. Failure to do so could mean
seeing beautiful things destroyed, replaced by the same chaos and fear that
people are already fleeing.

> I say this as someone who hates to travel

Well, maybe if you saw more of the world, and saw what people are trying to
protect (e.g. in Europe), and got a greater sense of what it means to be a
people (as opposed to the atomized, decultured masses in North America)...
maybe you might understand why someone would seek to preserve something.

It makes sense that you don't care about preserving your local strip mall /
walmart / home depot. It's quite another thing to care about preserving Notre
Dame and such.

~~~
closeparen
You do not get Paris or Amsterdam or Vienna from a static set of families
iterating in isolation over thousands of years. These are global cities,
deeply integrated with and shaped by trade, migration and conquest. It's not
Amish country or quiet little fishing villages that are attracting all these
tourists.

------
socrates1998
Local people really need to price out a lot of the tourists. You really need
to implement a high tax/price, this would cut down on the tourists and allow
locals to reap more benefits.

I don't know if it is still like this, but when I was in Cinque Terra in the
Italian Riviera, there was a lot that seem to be structured into the place to
have tourism, but not let it overwhelm the place.

Building development was strictly controlled, so the hotel/hostel we stayed at
was pretty simple and converted apartment building.

There wasn't a ton to do in the towns, like jet skiiing or parasailing, so the
appeal of the place didn't feel like a resort place. It really felt like
people mainly made wine there with a few converted buildings that tourists
stayed at.

For me, the main draw of the place aside from the natural beauty was the lack
of things that seem to cater to tourists.

The second night I was there, we ran into a post-wedding party with locals at
a bar who outnumbered the tourists probably 25-1.

And that felt normal. Like, we were there seeing how these people lived and
just got to enjoy the lifestyle and beauty for a few days.

Contrast this to Venice, which was almost 100% tourism to me. It felt like a
museum. Locals seemed almost out of place. While the buildings weren't new,
everything in the town seemed to revolv around selling stuff to tourists.

~~~
mc_blue
Interesting take! A couple thoughts: -Wouldn't a high tax/price on tourism
have a drastic negative effect on the local economy? Your example of Venice -
if you price out the majority of tourists, I would think the Venice economy
would have to do a major pivot, something that would likely take some time and
effort. -High tax/price on tourism is only pricing out the tourists that can't
afford the tax. I agree it's one of the easier solutions to implement, but
something doesn't feel right about tourist destinations becoming destinations
only for those rich enough to afford the tax. In addition, I don't necessarily
believe there is a correlation between wealth and environmentally friendly
tourist behavior. In other words, are wealthier tourists really that more
likely to treat the tourist destination in a more positive way than
lower/middle class tourists?

~~~
socrates1998
For me, Venice is too far gone to change without significant pain to the local
economy.

The point of pricing isn't to completely eliminate tourism, it's to lower it.

The goal is to find a price point that cuts down, but doesn't eliminate
tourism.

And while it would attract a higher wealth tourist, you can easily adjust the
system to a lottery type where you have a certain percent of people who just
buy access and others who won a lottery.

They do this out west for river access during the summer. They don't want a
whole bunch of people river rafting and destroying the river, so they have a
lottery that you have to buy a ticket for. You lose the money if you don't win
a license. This creates revenue without increasing the number of tourists. And
it also creates a system where people who really want to go there, will buy a
ticket without a guarantee of a spot. And,when they do go, they tend to be
much better quality tourists since.

I know people who have been buying tickets for almost a decade and haven't
gotten a spot.

Something like this is very effective at keeping up revenue and decreasing the
number of tourists.

~~~
Scoundreller
That solution could be rephrased as:

“Make poor people poorer”.

The price increases won’t impact the wealthy, even if they did have to reduce
their travel by 10-20%. But it will impact those that save (or pay-off) for
years for their dream trip or honeymoon trip.

My preferred approach would be more progressive than regressive: just make
rich people poorer through income/capital/dividend taxes.

~~~
socrates1998
If you are poor, should you really be going to Venice?

A reasonably priced lottery would give middle income people access and an even
playing field against wealthy people.

This system, combined with a limit on tourist infrastructure would cut down on
excessive visitors and make it sustainable.

------
skilled
I lived in Asia for nearly four years. Since 2015 and came back home a few
months ago.

It was surreal to see the level of tourism increase between my favorite
places. And I am convinced this is a bad thing because it steals the soul of
the said environment.

People become more comfortable with greed. I was in Cambodia in late 2015,and
was quite happy with pricing of things, even if often charged a premium. Then,
I returned earlier this year for a holiday and quickly learned that prices
have soared, and sellers don't care if you put your fruit and vegetables back.
This was a huge warning for me personally.

In short, a lot of these places are becoming the exact same thing anywhere you
go. An opportunity to grab money from foreigners, whilst putting culture as
the very last thing for others to see and experience.

Anyway, I am probably just ranting. I do love Asia but the effects of mass
tourism are very real.

~~~
CydeWeys
Is it really greed? Sounds more like market pricing at work to me. The people
who live there deserve a good living too, right? So long as their country is
being flooded by tourists anyway they might as start enjoying a somewhat
comparable standard of living.

Prices are soaring because tourism is soaring. Don't be mad at the people
responding rationally to market forces and enjoying a higher standard of
living; be mad at the tourists. And as someone who isn't from there and only
lived there for a few years, you have more in common with the tourists than
the locals.

~~~
skilled
Actually, I have more "foreign local" friends than people I know in my country
of birth. It wasn't a choice per se, but it just so happened that I found a
lot of interesting people to connect with.

I understand your point, it's valid. But I will add that local markets, in
Cambodia for example, will sit on mangoes and papaya until they rot, and
_still_ charge a premium despite the product being borderline inedible.

Oh, and I am very well aware of local prices. If you take a local with you to
theater or even grocery shopping, you'll astound yourself at the "premium"
that you get charged as a foreigner.

~~~
CydeWeys
Food waste is hardly unique to developing countries though! Nearly half of all
food that's produced in developed nations ends up not being eaten; it's thrown
out at various points in the pipeline. From a food waste criterion, the
developing world is actually much better.

------
wickerman
Just travel off-season. I went to Venezia, Firenze and Milano last year in
October. Barely saw any more people than I would see anywhere else in the off
peak of, say, Dublin. Smelt nice, had no problem with crowds, weather was
gorgeous.

I can travel off season because I don't have children, and I can take time off
at any point in time during the year. The problem of congestion really is for
people with families or who don't can't take time off outside "summer" months.

~~~
lnsru
I am going to have schoolchildren soon. Looks like the whole world
doubles/triples the prices for these shorts periods when German schoolchildren
have vacation. Forget cheap flights, cheap hotels, off-season empty famous
places. My colleague was repeating f-words recently, because due to school he
can go home to Philippines only during rain season. It’s time to look for some
new exotic, unknown for tourists destinations.

------
alexk307
God forbid the global middle class can experience other cultures and get
outside of their own bubble.

~~~
magduf
Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous. I hate to bash liberals, because I usually
identify as one, but this is definitely one of those places where it seems
they can't make up their minds. They bash middle-class Americans for not being
well-traveled enough, for not "thinking globally", for being too ignorant of
cultures outside the US, etc. And now they're bashing middle-class Americans
for touring overseas too much. WTF?

~~~
FussyZeus
Because going to a foreign country and staying in an English speaking hotel
between trips to landmarks and Burger King (but in Spain!!!) is not
experiencing other cultures.

You're the "Vince Vega" tourist who visits France and eats fucking McDonalds.
You've completely missed the point of visiting another place, you've just gone
to the place where America has exported its culture into another area, with
all the grace and sensitivity of a hiker taking a dump on a birds nest.

~~~
samsonradu
While I find your comment quite rude, I remember having a “What the fuck!”
moment when I saw the huge McDonalds on Champs-Elysees.

~~~
FussyZeus
Sorry, I get punchy when people deliberately misconstrue what other people are
saying to further their own biases. It's a particular trigger for me.

~~~
magduf
Well you should be pissed at yourself then, because I didn't misconstrue
anything, yet you completely misconstrued what I wrote, and made ridiculous
and untrue assumptions about me. Maybe you should stop projecting and try
working on your own issues.

------
jacquesm
The sooner that global oil crisis happens the better. Yes, it will cause a
terrible economic disaster.

But at the same time it will have positive effects for both global warming and
for the fragile eco-systems and heritage sites of the world.

~~~
moccachino
Unfortunately there is way too much oil known today. Much of it will have to
stay underground, if the worst climate catastrophes are to be averted.

~~~
marcosdumay
On the other hand, it's getting more and more expensive. The amount of cheap
oil still on the ground isn't nearly as large as the amount of oil.

Anyway, the main concern for climate change is coal. Not only it pollutes
more, but there is much more of it on the ground than oil and gas. Luckily,
solar is successfully competing with it.

~~~
assblaster
Wouldn't that be priced into futures contracts? Even with all the problems
with Iran, the price of oil is really low in a historical context.

~~~
marcosdumay
Price is not a clear signal as you seem to be expecting. Remember, it's only a
scalar that has to satisfy all of the constraints every person thinks is
important.

Oil in particular seems to be unable to stay at very high prices. Historically
we just get a recession and it goes down again.

------
mattlutze
The confluence of lower travel costs, higher individual wealth and population
growth is proving also an incredible stress on the cultures and uniqueness of
global landmark travel locations. The attraction of tourists encourages the
development of hotels over local housing, for real estate companies to put
existing apartments on Airbnb instead of renting them, attracts chain
entertainment companies who buy out established local restaurants/bars/spaces.

Pair this with the continuing trend of residential population density increase
metropolitan areas. As travel becomes cheaper and Internet-enabled
connectivity improves, multinational firms expand into more and more regional
hot spots, bringing external wealth, increasing the prices on goods and
housing in locations where tourism is already decreasing the availability of
housing for local / long-term residents.

As these two effects collide, real estate prices climb, and that spike must be
attractive to speculative investors -- as in SF, NYC, London, these cities see
purchase prices climb faster than income increases. Then because the
investment needs to be offset while the value rises, those houses / apartments
are also put up for short-term rental or corporate lease.

The result is that the people who made up the city and made it run get pushed
out, that it's culture is washed away. Dublin, Lisbon, Berlin, Munich,
Amsterdam, Prague all demonstrate this process, and it's likely to continue
unless the mass tourism floods can be reversed, and pressures to move into the
middle of these cities is mitigated.

I'm actually really excited about burgeoning air taxis, along with things like
level 4/5 microbus-augmented public transport, for reducing the pressure of
relocating to cities themselves. But travel may also need to get more
expensive again -- we don't yet require flights to be offset for their impact
on the environment, let alone their impact on local life, and both of those
avenues may need to be reviewed.

~~~
buboard
> an incredible stress on the cultures and uniqueness

Are there still local cultures anywhere in the world? The west, and a lot of
asia is more or less similar now, people are accepting of each other's habits
and won't make a fuss if you break whatever local customs are left. I think
local cultures were a thing of tourism ~40 years ago, people now glorify tiny
differences.

~~~
mattlutze
> Are there still local cultures anywhere in the world?

There are, yeah. Even city to city in sub-regions of different countries.

> people are accepting of each other's habits and won't make a fuss if you
> break whatever local customs are left.

This is different from cultures not existing; tolerance != homogeneity.

~~~
buboard
> There are, yeah. Even city to city in sub-regions of different countries.

Maybe in asia, where there are still less developed areas. In europe, which is
by far the biggest tourist destinations i don't think there is true local
culture to discover. There is an adulteratered "culture" doped with
conservatives, maintained mainly because of tourism in some places.

~~~
mattlutze
> In europe, which is by far the biggest tourist destinations i don't think
> there is true local culture to discover.

I live in Europe and am happy to report that there are indeed differentiated
cultures, even city to city in many areas.

> There is an adulteratered "culture" doped with conservatives, maintained
> mainly because of tourism in some places.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

~~~
buboard
> am happy to report that there are indeed differentiated cultures, even city
> to city in many areas.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_difference...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences)

> I don't understand what you're saying here.

Sorry i mean fake, non-organic "culture" and "traditions" that have only been
preserved because tourists like them

------
Dumblydorr
I prefer nature hikes in nearby regions to taking a plane to see X thing that
you MUST see. I drive an efficient vehicle, it costs me nothing to get on the
trail, and most trails just have friendly hikers, not tourists. This is a far
more efficient leisure choice than heading to Paris or Rome and joining the
throngs.

~~~
overcast
QUIET YOU.

Hiking is the last bastion. However I'm fairly confident that really won't
ever change, at least once you get past the 2 mile marker. Tourists fade away
beyond that.

~~~
yifanl
I don't buy that. The percentage of people who are willing to hike > 2mi
should be fairly static between tourists and non-tourists, no?

I know personally, I'll take a trip down to the Bruce Peninsula for a day
hike. (I also personally wouldn't fly somewhere JUST for a hike, but that's
only because of closer and more easily accessible hiking trails.)

~~~
overcast
The massive influx of tourism that people are complaining about, are
absolutely NOT doing extended day hikes. People are being carted in by
chartered buses and tour guides. There is no way you're seeing these families,
and selfie teens 5,10,15 miles out there. Which is why I do it. Silence.

~~~
jointpdf
Unfortunately, this is not so. The John Muir Trail has seen extremely rapid
growth [1] in the number of thru-hikers (many of whom are first-time
backpackers). It’s the same story for other popular “named” trails that become
bucket-list items. There is a cap on the number of permits, but people skirt
around those restrictions.

Maybe the solution is to develop additional long-distance hiking networks and
increase the area of protected land in the US, realizing that the cost-benefit
ratio of doing so is outrageously high.

[1]
[https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/images/jmtgraph_2.png](https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/images/jmtgraph_2.png)

------
JoeAltmaier
As standard of living rises, number of people able to afford leisure and
travel increases. Yet the number of destinations is fairly fixed (the Earth
isn't getting any bigger). So every place gets crowded.

Its not tourism; its growing affluence and diminishing 'touristy' places. No
longer as easy to find an ancient monastery to tour, when they've installed AC
and rebuilt with electric lights and indoor plumbing.

~~~
buboard
> diminishing 'touristy' places

It doesnt matter. Tourists keep flocking in ridiculous amounts to tiny islands
for their instagram selfies. Everyone says they want a "unique" experience,
but in reality they don't. There are countries like greece where "unique"
experiences untouched by repackaging/commercialization dont exist for decades-
everything has been touristified.

------
jalgos_eminator
I don't see a problem here (other than the carbon emissions part). If you
don't want crowds, don't go to Venice in July, don't go to Kyoto in the
spring, and don't go to Munich during Oktoberfest. If you have school aged
kids, then I don't really have sympathy for you, and I won't have sympathy for
myself either when I have kids. Its one of those things you have to deal with
as a parent.

People who want an actually unique experience will seek those out and find it.
This year I went to a European country that exactly none of my family or
friends could point to on a map, and it was amazing. I even went about a month
before their tourist season started. If you find yourself complaining about
crowds at tourist places, maybe you need to examine what it is that you wanted
out of the trip.

------
robben1234
If people didn't want to visit iconic places they wouldn't be iconic. If you
ever went to China, in most cities, not just the most popular ones, if you go
to city center where people are used to spend free time, you will find
yourself in a crowd bigger than Venice when a couple of cruise ships are
docked for a day.

Industry or gov shouldn't regulate to only serve those who are able to pay
premium. There's nothing wrong with visiting that same Venice while living in
a nearby city. Just build the infrastructure to accommodate more people and
warn everyone that you should brace yourself to walk in the crowd or postpone
your visit until off-season (or in case of Venice, just walk it in the early
morning).

------
mikysco
This article saddens me in the same way that my heart aches after learning
about a new horror of climate change. The problem is large in scale - a true
tragedy of the commons - and impacts those of us who travel on a personal
level. As always, the poor are most impacted.

With this said, I still find it easy even in the globe's most popular cities,
to escape the crowds and find hidden treasures by wandering sans
guidebook/blog/etc. Making an extensive plan before traveling will almost by
definition ensure your path crosses with a vast majority of other travelers.

~~~
gumby
The article explicitly recommends avoiding the commons problem via a tax.

------
buboard
> The world is big, but it isn’t big enough to be everyone’s personal
> playground.

Sure but people still want to leave. They don't seem to particularly enjoy
their local enclaves anywhere (bowling alone etc). Online and offline escapism
is on a steady rise this decade (e.g. digital nomads) so how is that going to
be handled? Congestion pricing can do so much, there will always be cheaper
alternative destinations. In fact younger people may not even want to have a
permanent base anymore, so everyone will be a tourist, and everywhere will be
a destination.

~~~
mattlutze
Each location will have to determine when it's seen enough erosion, but places
that don't will end up like Venice, or some of the southern North American
hotspots for American tourists that only exist now to serve a Disney-like
vacation experience.

Cheap globetrotting was never a reality for anyone but the wealthy until the
middle of last century. As we're discovering for many other things, being able
to make it a reality for the middle classes is something we should have
perhaps acknowledged but not acted upon.

~~~
buboard
> Each location will have to determine when it's seen enough erosion

That assumes that there are people who care. But if globetrotting becomes the
dominant way to live for the middle class, very few people will care. Most
people are flocking in major metropolises to work and live in tiny apartments.
That trend has not changed, even with technology making it easier to work
remotely. This centralization means that in the future anything outside rich
megacities will be a tourist destination - and just that.

We already see that happening in the south of europe, which is becoming a
convenient cheap tourist destination while the brain drain to the north
continues.

~~~
magduf
>We already see that happening in the south of europe, which is becoming a
convenient cheap tourist destination while the brain drain to the north
continues.

There's really nothing stopping places like that from changing themselves to
make themselves more attractive to industry and business to stop the brain
drain. The people are leaving because those places haven't bothered making
themselves nice places to stay and live and work in high-paying professions.

~~~
buboard
> really nothing stopping places like that from changing themselves to make
> themselves

you'd think, but places dont change themselves - people change them. And when
these people have left, it would take exceptional circumstances to reverse the
trend.

~~~
magduf
Only some people have left, because they're tired of the people still there
not improving things. The people who are left still have it in their power to
improve things, but generally don't, so they only have themselves to blame for
the brain drain.

------
foobarbecue
Just like python eh

~~~
jerf
Clearly, the Hacker News gestalt is providing us a solution here; set Python
on the tourists. "Sir, in order to visit the Eiffel Tower today, I'm going to
need you to tell me what this Python code does...."

~~~
gumby
Given some of the code I've had to spelunking this may be an unsolvable
problem.

The Eiffel Tower was built as a tourist destination so they'd make the problem
easy, but this might be good for Machu Picchu

Actually for the latter it could be a knowledge of the history quiz, or a
leave-no-trace quiz...

------
Aunche
Tourism is often times an economic crutch to areas that countries can't grow
out of. Some of the most iconic vacation destinations in the world like Bali
and the Bahamas have some of the worst poverty inland where tourists don't
like to venture. Talent ends up being used to help foreigners rather than the
local people. Why would you study hard to be a doctor in your impoverished
hometown when you can make more money as a bartender at a resort?

------
bigred100
Tourism is a scam. Travel is a scam unless you’re doing actual business or
have someone to visit. I sit at home and drink coffee and read the newspaper.

------
chumali
It's true that travel should not be reserved for the wealthy. At the same time
however travel is no different to most other non-essential commodities and
should be similarly allocated via the price mechanism. Given that the supply
of desirable destinations is fixed and demand is rising it stands to reason
these destinations cannot be accessible to everyone.

As the article touches upon, each additional tourist presents an increase in
the external costs they impose on everyone else. These costs may manifest in
price increases (more expensive accommodation) or in other ways (longer
queues, disruptions to locals, etc). Taxes are very much needed so that
tourists bare the true cost of their presence. This will achieve the desired
outcome of reducing tourist numbers by pricing some people out and making
alternative destinations more appealing relative to their price.

Tourism is a luxury and there is no serious case to be made that cities should
have to effectively subsidise the demand of travellers so that everyone can
see the world.

~~~
rhacker
Definitely agree. I don't have a chance in hell of making it to Everest, not
because I wouldn't want to, but I can't afford it. But if I could afford it,
as much as I hear the place is already pretty much ruined (reports of garbage,
dead bodies everywhere)- if everyday people like me started heading there, it
would be obliterated. Now I'm not saying all travel should be reserved for the
wealthy, but it makes sense that we have different levels of cost for
different places. I've had two people on my team visit Reykjavik recently. And
I'm just thinking - how on earth did people find out about these places.
(short answer the internet ruiner of all places nice)

------
lifeisstillgood
Take the tourist's dollars (yuan / whatever) - build schools, hospitals,
infrastructure and plan to treble your tourism in 20 years - but to overwhelm
that with non-tourism industries like solar cell production or battery
factories. Build sewage treatment plants, build roads for electric public
transport buses. Build 5 G cell towers.

This is not a disaster - this is bootstrapping.

------
chantelles
I read this in the 90's and it changed entirely how I traveled and spoke about
tourism. Maybe it is useful here: “We drove 22 miles into the country around
Farmington. There were meadows and apple orchards. White fences trailed
through the rolling fields. Soon the sign started appearing. THE MOST
PHOTOGRAPHED BARN IN AMERICA. We counted five signs before we reached the
site. There were 40 cars and a tour bus in the makeshift lot. We walked along
a cowpath to the slightly elevated spot set aside for viewing and
photographing. All the people had cameras; some had tripods, telephoto lenses,
filter kits. A man in a booth sold postcards and slides -- pictures of the
barn taken from the elevated spot. We stood near a grove of trees and watched
the photographers. Murray maintained a prolonged silence, occasionally
scrawling some notes in a little book.

"No one sees the barn," he said finally.

A long silence followed.

"Once you've seen the signs about the barn, it becomes impossible to see the
barn."

He fell silent once more. People with cameras left the elevated site, replaced
by others.

We're not here to capture an image, we're here to maintain one. Every
photograph reinforces the aura. Can you feel it, Jack? An accumulation of
nameless energies."

There was an extended silence. The man in the booth sold postcards and slides.

"Being here is a kind of spiritual surrender. We see only what the others see.
The thousands who were here in the past, those who will come in the future.
We've agreed to be part of a collective perception. It literally colors our
vision. A religious experience in a way, like all tourism."

Another silence ensued.

"They are taking pictures of taking pictures," he said.”

― Don DeLillo, White Noise

------
Nasrudith
The whole notion strikes me as self-defeating xenophobia - pardon the
redundancy (it is the ideology of losers - literally).

The world not having enoug space to be a playground is downright absurd.

If they didn't have the tourists they would be complaining even more about
lacking an economy and blaming them for not visiting.

------
peterwwillis
This article only focuses on a few hot tourist destinations, but it then tries
to generalize that to _the entire world_ , which is mostly _not_ one giant
tourist destination. "The World" is not "eaten" just because Mount Everest is
crowded. Tourism is mostly just eating Tourism.

On the other hand, tourism accounts for 8% of greenhouse gas emissions. As
rates of tourism increase, so will a negative effect on the global
environment. And an increase in poorly implemented eco-tourism is hurting
vulnerable environments without strong economies to protect them; some
examples being the Galapagos and Madagascar. Those parts of the world
definitely _are_ being eaten by Tourism, and we should focus more on
sustainable tourism to prevent further damage.

------
thatfrenchguy
One of the big interesting thing this article completely forgets is that with
the rise of the social-media-driven bucket lists, tourists, especially the
ones from far away, tend to congregate in a few places, in countries where
there is a million things to see.

This is especially obvious in France where American tourists only go to Paris
and Nice (and a few other places in the south), leaving the rest of the
country for us and our Dutch, British and German neighbors ;-)

~~~
Thriptic
I agree. I recently visited Italy and was planning on visiting several of the
major cities. I went to Florence for a day and it was such a shit show that I
gave up on the larger cities entirely (think thousands and thousands of people
crammed around notable sights all trying to get that perfect shot for IG).

Instead, I spent most of my time in the countryside. It was absolutely
beautiful and I rarely saw another foreigner.

~~~
datenhorst
The countryside in Italy doesn't necessarily mean you're away from tourists,
see the Dutch on Lago di Garda or the Germans in South Tyrol.

------
chansiky
When did tourism become so huge? I honestly don’t remember people talking
about their trips and vacations much growing up, but I felt a sharp rise with
the rise of social media. I knew of very few people who routinely went on
crazy vacations and talked about it, now it seems like they are everywhere. Is
it because of social status and the selfie zombie? I even had a girl refuse to
talk to me because I didn’t go on these elaborate vacation trips. (I’m sorry
but I grew up on handmedowns and not having enough food was a thing. I’m not
going to spend a few thousand on a field trip when my parents back home are
doing everything they can to save a few dollars).

I remember going to national parks growing up and they were never that
crowded. I feel like it’s all changed. And now instead of people who go to
these places to actually see and experience the place, they go there for all
the wrong reasons.

~~~
ryacko
[https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/](https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/)

National park admissions are public records. There seems to less attendance
now than in the 90s.

------
tempsy
I imagine Instagram in particular has really changed the destinations that
people choose to go to over the last few years. I'd be curious if the problem
is more concentrated at the top e.g. the most "Instagrammable" destinations
have become ever more crowded and are attracting a larger share of leisure $.

------
jonahss
This is a good sign of travel and leisure being affordable for an increasing
percentage of the global population. Regrettable for current tourist
destinations that aren’t set up for the scale, but we should be happy that so
many people from so many places are free to travel

------
anirudh5789
Well, the congestion tax is not the only way! The market will consolidate on
its own. Remember, tourism is part of every nation's economy, and adding more
tax might shift tourists to other places. If the demand is increasing without
any change to supply (number of flights, rental options, etc.), then the
prices will increase for sure. I believe technology has made it easy to access
than solved the supply problem. There is no need to introduce a separate tax.
Looks more propaganda to slow down the tourism industry. If a place is super
crowded, then you will see a decline in the number of visitors because it
kills the ambiance (or prices might shoot up).

------
jackcosgrove
Tourism usually involves seeing the same things everybody else has seen, and
taking a picture to tick a box.

I think it's actually more novel nowadays to develop a really intimate
knowledge of your home city/town/place and be content with that.

------
BurningFrog
This is how a world where everyone is becoming middle class looks. It will
chafe here and there, but it's basically a wonderful thing that poverty is
disappearing.

And if you think tourist spots are crowded now, wait until the UBI society
arrives :)

------
thom
Articles About The Wrong Kind Of Tourists Are Overwhelming The Hacker News
Front Page.

------
6d6b73
Python is Eating the World

Tourism is Eating the World

Software is Eating the World

[...] is Eating the World

I guess there will be nothing left to eat soon.

~~~
fokinsean
We still have the billionaires

------
hairytrog
We need to start pricing tourism. For example, why should a Chinese citizen
visiting Yosemite only pay the same as an American citizen who is paying a
lifetime of taxes to run and protect the park? The tourists use the entire
infrastructure and economy to their benefit without paying the historical
price that citizens have paid. They simply tap into the current prices.

We can charge for tourism in a few ways:

1\. price discrimination at individual locations based on passport. This would
be difficult to implement and unpopular.

2\. Charge really high prices for tourist visas that represent the true value
of the what the tourists is gaining access to.

3\. UBI for citizens

~~~
dpacmittal
Your comment is making it seem like tourists are costing the country money
while the opposite is true. Tourists buy a non trivial amount of USD which
they end up spending inside the country.

~~~
hairytrog
I agree. They do pay for things while they are here. But they are not paying
for everything they are getting. For example, have they paid for all the
infrastructure they are using? Or for the 100 years of parks conservation? Or
the US system of law and order? They are not paying the full price.

~~~
dpacmittal
>have they paid for all the infrastructure they are using?

They use it for a couple of days compared to lifetime use by the citizens.

Your comment sounds so hateful and privileged. It almost sounds like "we made
all this infrastructure, parks, law and order for you. You need to pay fairly
for the honor and privilege to use it".

In India, public attractions charge higher to foreigners but the stated reason
is purchase power parity. Indians on average make like $2k annually.

------
Grzegrzolka
Dunno how it looks in US but in Europe traveling became unbelievably cheap. I
live in Poland, we have shit earnings and yet I don't think I that know many
people that are NOT traveling heavily because it's super easy to find cheap
flights and cheap Arbnb everywhere, even some exitic places like Cambodia. I
was in Rome couple days with my girlfriend in March this year, I don't think I
paid more than 100€ for flight and housing combined for 2 people.

------
neetusingh123
India is biggest Tourism Attraction Arrivals in India increased to 721015 in
June from 610590 in May of 2019. Tourist Arrivals in India averaged 486693.55
from 2000 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 1191147 in December of 2018
and a record low of 129286 in May of 2001.

Neetu Singh IAS

------
univalent
Just limit tourist visas to a level that's comfortable? It just becomes a
simple wait if you want to see a place. No different to waiting in a queue to
go inside any attraction. And maybe invest tourism dollars to conservation of
these places/landmarks?

------
hnaccy
I feel like I missed the boat on seeing world before tourism overran
everything. Bummer.

------
ulisesrmzroche
I think the way to solve it (it’s contributing to climate chaos) is to make
local travel, as inside the state, something cool, something only those with
real class do

Let the unwashed yokels and barbarians keep flying. They’ll come around soon
enough

------
pastor_elm
Tourism can be properly regulated but people don't want to miss out on even a
couple dollars. Cheaper countries, like Thailand, have to be priced
accordingly. Compare Kauai with Phuket.

------
seanalltogether
Isn't this the true goal of globalism, each microcosm has to hyperfocus its
resources and how they can be sold in the best way.

------
growlist
I got slated not long ago for saying that mass tourism has ruined travel for
me. Seems it's ruined it for other people also.

------
frereubu
Reminds me of this 1958 essay by Hans Magnus Enzensberger called A Theory Of
Tourism - (PDF, 2MB)
[https://elearning.uniroma1.it/pluginfile.php/541204/mod_foru...](https://elearning.uniroma1.it/pluginfile.php/541204/mod_forum/attachment/106757/hans-
magnus-enzensberger%20copy.pdf) I think it's overly negative, and when, in the
second half, it started to link tourism to the Holocaust it lost me. But there
are some excellent points in the first half about the logical progression of
tourism, which I found fascinating and prescient given the date it was
written.

------
manicdee
Overpopulation is overwhelming the world.

------
JamesSchriver
What part of massive floods of plane and bus loads of Chinese "tourists" is
going to lead to the naive notion that "people meet each other, talk and
learn"? I am not asking this condescendingly, but have you at all traveled
anywhere? How many times did you meet and talk and learn from a Chinese/mass
tour group? THAT is unfortunately the future, NOT some fantastical notion of
cultural interchange talking to a local Parisian in a corner cafe. There will
soon not even be any actual Native French people in Paris at the rate things
are going, and that's just one of the pernicious and dark aspects of this
globalism that is utterly destroying the planet and humanity.

Sadly, it seems you suffer from the common mentality that seems rather
pervasive among European people's overall, a sense of a kind of self-righteous
ignorance, of presuming an equality mirrored on one's own culture, values,
ideals, nature, and character; essentially the manifestation of the delusional
belief that "we are all the same" and that muddling and mixing falsely equates
to diversity.

Reality simply is that not all humans share the characteristics or values and
ideals that have emerged from the rotten and pernicious western experience of
abundance combined with various other cultural and traditional
characteristics. No, the combined 3 BILLION people of India and China are not
going to "meet each other, talk and learn" as they swarm and swamp Europe and
the USA's measly combined <1 billion population, nor will the 4.5 Billion
Africans somehow just want to talk and learn and meet in 2100 when the
combined crush of humanity starts really gripping.

We are seeing these articles just now, as a relatively small subset of each of
those populations has any means whatsoever to travel and become tourists, just
wait until the exponentially rising numbers of them have the means to travel
to swamp Europe and the USA, when citizens won't even have the ability to see
their own cultural sites or artifacts in anything like peace or focus as
billions of "tourists" flood into the relatively few places of interest.

no, this is just the beginning of far greater consequences of ill guided,
self-righteous tyranny that is always common to the self-appointed
authoritarian ruling class. This is the future you and we have condemned our
children to, being overrun and dissociated with our own cultural heritage out
of misguided delusional co-dependent and enabling policies of overpopulation
of the planet.

~~~
coldtea
> _What part of massive floods of plane and bus loads of Chinese "tourists" is
> going to lead to the naive notion that "people meet each other, talk and
> learn"? I am not asking this condescendingly, but have you at all traveled
> anywhere? How many times did you meet and talk and learn from a Chinese/mass
> tour group?_

Not sure why you'd single out the Chinese tourists.

Most American/English/German/Australian/Russian etc tourists are just as
ghastly and vacuous - to the point of there being several idioms and cultural
artifacts in Europe about that...

~~~
asark
It's all the shoving, mostly, for me. Their group leader banners/umbrellas are
a sight to be feared and avoided. Not behavior I see from others, (relatively)
few of whom form so many large travel groups of that sort anyway.

