
Norway's Bold Plan to Tackle Overtourism - gerbilly
https://www.outsideonline.com/2401446/norway-adventure-travel-overtourism
======
cletus
Welcome to the world of, by some measures, "too many" people having too much
disposable wealth. There are obviously worse problems to have. But overtourism
is a problem that's only going to get worse.

This even affects Mount Everest where people are literally dying just to say
they stood at the top of the world. And Everest simply can't support the
number of climbers now.

You see this in US national parks where the obvious ones (eg Yosemite) are
arguably oversubscribed while others you could probably go days without seeing
anyone.

There's a certain lack of imagination here. Some of it is convenience. Take
Everest. People climb it because it's the tallest and people know what it is.
There are ~14 other peaks over 8000 meters. Are any of these qualitatively
worse experiences? Probably not. But... bragging rights.

Solutions to this fall into a number of buckets:

1\. Making it more expensive: some will complain only the rich can go and this
is unfair.

2\. Quotas: you have to book far, far in advance and no doubt this is unfair
to some people.

3\. Lottery system: this is really a variation of quotas but probably fairer.

So I've been to Paris like 4 times. I like it but my God the touristy places
are a nightmare such that I basically never went to any. Honestly the best
part for me was the bread. The sandwiches you'd buy on the street were
unbelievably good.

Anyway, I honestly don't understand this need people have to jam in with
100,000 other people just to see some famous building. Maybe that's just me.

~~~
munificent
_> "too many" people having too much disposable wealth. _

I don't think this is the problem at all. The world is huge. There are
millions of tourist destinations and plenty of room for people in all of them.

The problem is with distribution. Social media creates power law distributions
of attention. There are a few pieces of writing I wish every human on Earth
had read and this is one of them:

[http://shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html](http://shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html)

Instagram has caused these power law distributions to escape media onto the
real world. While there are millions of delightful vacation destinations, most
people never hear about most of them. Instead, a tiny minority of the most
photogenic one (like Trolltunga, mentioned in the article), consume almost all
of the attention and then net a huge, unmanageable number of visitors. For
every Everest, there are a hundred mountains that are 90% as beautiful but
only get 10% of the visitors.

I believe this is one of the fundamental, structural problems of the modern
age. Most of the information we consume — literally the knowledge we base our
worldview on — is now brought to our attention based on social media sharing
and aggregation. The nature of those systems takes a linear range of
"relevance" and distorts it into power law that no longer matches reality. But
because this _is_ our window into reality, we then take the result of that
distortion at face value.

I would love to see more systems engineered to try to balance that. Perhaps a
Twitter-like system that capped the number of followers you had. A
recommendation engine that subtracted out the effect of popularity when
ranking. But so far I don't see many. I'm not sure if it's because it's not
what people want, not what advertisers want, or what.

(The great thing about _knowing_ that this effect happens is that you can
often easily acquire a better-than-average experience by deliberately stepping
a little farther towards the long tail. The third best restaurant in a city is
usually almost as good as #1 but noticeably cheaper. The second-most popular
hike will give you 80% of the view with 20% of the crowds.)

~~~
schoen
This is a great point! I've noticed a similar thing with Muir Woods in the San
Francisco Bay Area. There are other amazing ancient redwood forests in several
other places nearby (e.g. Samuel P. Taylor State Park, Redwood Regional Park,
Joaquin Miller Park, the north side of Mount Tamalpais facing Fairfax, and
several places along both sides of Skyline Drive along the peninsula --
probably among others that I don't know).

OK, the redwood trees in them might be only 80% as old and tall, the United
Nations might not have been founded inside them, and some of them might have
only 6 km of trails through the forest rather than 10 km. But many of these
places are often nearly deserted, have no entrance fee, are a quicker and less
twisty drive from San Francisco, and are incredibly majestic, peaceful, and
spectacular.

Meanwhile, Muir Woods had to introduce a rationing and permit system to visit
by private car or public bus
([https://gomuirwoods.com/](https://gomuirwoods.com/)), and along the main
trail on the valley floor you are basically never out of sight of other
visitors during a weekend or holiday.

I've reserved a picnic area _inside an ancient redwood grove_ for an upcoming
birthday picnic.

[https://www.yelp.com/biz/lake-lagunitas-
fairfax](https://www.yelp.com/biz/lake-lagunitas-fairfax)

OK, it's definitely no Muir Woods, but it's just 6 km north of Muir Woods and
you can reserve the area for a small fee _on a weekend during the summertime_.

I think the power-law effects you describe have been true of tourism forever.
Muir Woods has attracted dramatically more tourists than the MMWD or EBMUD
redwood groves for decades. But I also think you're right that the Internet is
accelerating them, because you can hear about where to go via discovery
mechanisms that so drastically and rapidly reward pre-existing popularity.

(If you live in or visit the Bay Area, check out
[https://www.marinwater.org/175/Directions-Maps-to-
Watershed-...](https://www.marinwater.org/175/Directions-Maps-to-Watershed-
Sites) and [https://www.ebmud.com/recreation/east-bay/east-bay-
trails/](https://www.ebmud.com/recreation/east-bay/east-bay-trails/) for
information about hiking in -- often -- redwood forests owned by municipal
water districts in reservoir watersheds, or
[https://www.marinwater.org/DocumentCenter/View/156/Map_Marin...](https://www.marinwater.org/DocumentCenter/View/156/Map_Marin_Public_Lands_2012)
for a map of all public lands in Marin County.)

~~~
munificent
_> I think the power-law effects you describe have been true of tourism
forever._

Yes, they are an emergent property any time you have a communication network
where people rebroadcast information based on their preference, but restricted
to the set of choices they are aware of.

But I believe the exponent of the power curve increases as the amount of
resharing goes up. Before social media, you were still limited by what travel
books you saw in a store, or where your friends went on vacation, but there
was less reverberation and resonance in the network and a relatively flatter
power curve.

~~~
schoen
I agree with your analysis and think this is a helpful way to think about what
has and hasn't changed.

------
ohduran
Currently living in Barcelona, where 'overtourism' is a much bigger problem
than in Norway IMHO, it feels weird. You start passing bills on restricting
tourism, then the natural next step is being hard on immigration, then Brexit.

The ability to control who goes in and who goes out usually falls on the hand
of those that shouldn't have that kind of power.

Edit: Removed "At the risk of being downvoted" as some comments suggested

~~~
bjornsing
Yea it’s a funny word “overtourism”. I guess it’s what you call it when other
people go on vacation (whereas when I go on vacation it’s just “tourism”). :P

~~~
ohduran
If it's you, then it's a 'traveler' or a 'wonderlust'. The rest of the world
are simply 'tourists'.

It all comes down to the question "who do you think you are to block my path?"
It's not a straightforward answer, though. We've been struggling to answer
this as human beings since forever.

~~~
jameshart
Indeed. This exact attitude was satirized in an _A Bit of Fry & Laurie_ sketch
waaaay back in 1990:

Hugh: _Ah, yes well now you see, I have campaigned for years now to have
tourists banned from Venice._

Stephen: _Have you? Have you?_

Hugh: _I have, I have. It sounds very harsh, very cruel, very ..._

Stephen: _Deglante?_

Hugh: _Very deglante, thank you. But I 'm sure it's the only way._

Leslie: _Who was it, who was it, who said "He is a tourist, you are a
holidaymaker, but I am a traveller?"_

Hugh: _Oh, was it Humbert Wolfe?_

Stephen: _It was Cocteau, surely?_

... etc., etc...

------
paulsutter
I can't find much in the article about limiting tourism, except the two non-
impactful items below. Am I missing something?

> For 2019, the Norwegian Environmental Agency has a budget of $1.2 million to
> award grants to local areas to fortify existing trails or build new ones to
> accommodate increased visitor numbers.

> Svalbard has taken a number of measures to manage its tourism, including
> banning cruise ships carrying heavy oil from national-park perimeters,
> avoiding worldwide marketing, developing wilderness experiences closer to
> Longyearbyen to reduce carbon-emitting snowmobile tours, and working on ways
> to extend the average visitor stay to increase per-capita spending and
> decrease transportation carbon emissions to the islands.

------
iflywithbook
It's interesting to see countries work so hard to developing the tourism and
than reaching a point where they can't stop it

I lived in Amsterdam for a year and you can't walk in the city center without
drunk/high people around you

I was completely fine with it, but I know that many people who live in the
heart of amsterdam that their life changed once they tourist raised

What people should realize is that when the tourist is high in a city/country
it doesn't mean that all the people of the country benefit from it.

Only the owners of shops and services around the tourist industry and in many
cases it's a pretty centralised industry

~~~
balfirevic
I live in a city that has had an explosion of tourism in the last 10 years. I
don't benefit from it financially (if anything, the rents have shoot up
considerably because of it), but it looks to me like it has been the main
reason why the city doesn't feel empty and dead after 21h. I'm not sure I
would be living here were it not for the side-effects of tourism.

~~~
ido
dont you think you benefit from the fact your city's government has more money
to spend due to all the taxes collected from tourists' consumption/visits?

~~~
balfirevic
Theoretically, it would be possible. But there are several reasons why I don't
think of it as financially beneficial:

1) Rent and all cafes/bars/restaurants are significantly more expensive.

2) Most of the consumption is taxed via VAT, which goes directly to national
government.

3) Both local city government and national government are corrupt hellholes
which are certain to misuse any funds that come their way.

Edit: To be clear, I mean financially beneficial from "live in this particular
city" perspective. On national level, tourism is such a high percentage of GDP
that it's the only thing keeping the country alive. And we're in for a hell of
ride if we stop being a desirable destination.

------
el_cujo
I'm glad they're approaching it in a way beyond just "make everything more
expensive". It's interesting how when it comes to climate change, a lot of the
same people who are otherwise committed to egalitarian ideals immediately jump
to "just charge more" as a solution for everything. I'm not saying those kind
of policies can't be a piece of the solution, but I really don't see it being
effective to tell all but the rich to bike to work and take on vegan diets and
give up out of town vacations and stop using a/c, etc. Sure that would
probably be effective, but expecting that level of asceticism out of people is
just going to push them into the arms of the political parties who tell them
"climate change is fake, so take that vacation and don't worry".

~~~
1023bytes
Well, Norway is already one of the most expensive countries in the world,
second only to Switzerland.

~~~
sideshowb
Speaking as a tourist, Norway makes Switzerland look cheap. Even the Swiss
complain about the beer price in Norway!

------
frereubu
Whenever I hear about "sustainable tourism" developments like Ousland's, I
can't help but think about the huge amount of emissions caused by people
getting there in the first place. I bet the vast majority of visitors fly into
Tromsø. It feels a bit like painting the walls while the house is falling down
around you.

~~~
timidiceball
I’ve lived in Oslo for six years now and repeatedly talked myself out visiting
Tromsø for a long weekend because of this.

At some point I need to accept that it’s really the primary way to get around
the north.

------
mogadsheu
I think the answer is clear, if not a bit brutal: raise prices for tourists.

Tourism is a luxury, not a right, and if there is a perceived negative
externality to Norway from overtourism, it should be mitigated in the market.
There will be fewer people who are willing to go to Trolltunga if they are not
a Norwegian resident and the price of entry is $200.

Sidenote: I lived in Norway for a few years, gorgeous place but it does need
to be preserved to keep its integrity.

~~~
dredmorbius
Why should travel be the exclusive domain of the wealthy?

~~~
purple_ducks
Low cost travel & tourism are _not_ rights. They're privileges. Seems fair to
include negative externalities in the cost. If that excludes some people, so
be it. They can travel closer to home.

~~~
dredmorbius
And again: why should those privileges be reserved to the wealthy?

~~~
UnFleshedOne
There are much more basic rights not being met across the globe before we can
afford worrying about everybody having a yacht, a personal jet and close up
time with Mona Lisa.

~~~
dredmorbius
That's not answering the question.

~~~
mogadsheu
The other options besides increasing price would be:

\- lottery (example: powerball)

\- waiting list (case: Alcatraz, Coachella)

\- application based on xx criteria (case: Antarctica?)

or... a combination of the five (price being #5). In most of these cases,
money is still involved. Why? I think it's b/c it takes funding to administer,
maintain, and improve the attractions. So maybe pricing isn't the only option.

~~~
dredmorbius
Right.

These are at least fair relative to wealth / income.

And are frequently used for access to overutilised natural areas (e.g.,
lotteries, day-of-activity permits, waitlists).

Though the question about fairness of price-based rationing still hasn't been
answered ;-)

------
qwerty456127
Why is "overtourism" even considered a problem? Just start advertising new
destinations somewhere else in the country, raise the prices at the original
overwhelmed destination and take profit.

~~~
dantheman
There are many places that: 1\. Can only accommodate a certain number of
people with the available infrastructure 2\. Certain places lose their magic
when too crowded, they become unenjoyable

Many of these places are where you can't charge an admission or limit
attendance easily.

~~~
starpilot
They could go the way of Bhutan and charge each tourist $250 per day. Would
clear things up nicely.

------
mytailorisrich
There's no silver bullet. Tackling overtourism means limiting the number of
tourists. One way to do that is to impose high enough prices.

~~~
buro9
And then only the wealthy may have holidays.

~~~
johnchristopher
Holidays doesn't mean "travelling to another country in a plane" or "let's
take a credit to tour Italy".

~~~
barry-cotter
Quite true but if some can and some can’t the social class implications will
be picked up on very fast, whether the reason is money or political
connections.

~~~
UnFleshedOne
People will find a way to separate themselves into classes no matter what. And
those of higher class will separate themselves from the proles using any means
available.

Even in Soviet Union the running joke was that all people are equal, but some
people are more equal than others.

~~~
johnchristopher
There is another running joke "Everyone is born equal, then God sort them
out".

------
cromwellian
Travel tends to decrease xenophobia and increase empathy and cultural
understanding among those who do it. I worry that some of the use of
environmental impact is a "concern troll" cover to call for restrictions is
the result of more deeply seated xenophobic feelings.

Tourism is increasing because billions of people have been lifted out of
poverty, especially Chinese, and now they want to experience what those in the
West have experienced for decades with their disposable income. Now that the
formerly poor have the money to travel, I expect more people complaining about
the tourists, e.g. a big bus of Chinese pulls up in a small town, some kid
vandalizes something or some people leave trash, and a stereotype that "these
people" trash the town emerges.

(I'd also say Americans don't travel enough, less than 1/3rd have traveled
abroad, and some of this ignorance bolsters American exceptionalism, because
until you see how bad shape your infrastructure is in, or how good healthcare,
health, and public safety is in other countries, you have no context to be
skeptical of some of the crazy political assertions thrown around)

~~~
SolaceQuantum
I always find it really strange because chances are that by the time you get
to the most touristy places you’ve utterly failed at expanding your mind to
any real extent. Furthermore, it isn’t even necessary to travel-

If you’re a city person, vacation on a farm where you pay to try and help out
with the farm chores. If you’re a rural dweller live in a city like Baltimore,
Detroit, Chicago. If you live in the north, travel to the south, vice versa.
Swing by Buffalo or Rochester. Entertain Ithaca. Explore philly.

It might not even need to require travel. Volunteer for refugee crisis
centers. Volunteer for elder care. Volunteer for child care. Volunteer for
wildlife care. Raise a baby bird. Go to a reptile exhibit. Go fishing. Go to
an anime convention. Go to a furry convention.

~~~
cromwellian
It really depends on how you travel. Tour bus excursions are one thing, but
when you're young, backpacking and biking through another country, or doing
foreign exchange or student travel programs gives you much more exposure.
Consider the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Programme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Programme)
in Europe for example.

However, even traveling to touristy places can expand your mind. I recently
spent 3 weeks in Ecuador, it completely changed my mind about the country and
burst all of my pre-conceived nations, and I say this as someone who has
already been to Columbia, Chile, Peru, Argentina, et al.

For an American who thinks other countries are "shitholes" and that other
people "live in huts", even a touristy tourbus experience can burst your
bubble.

------
jacknews
This seems to be more about carbon footprint and sustainability than
"overtourism"?

Does all the oil Norway extract count towards their carbon balance, or is that
the consuming country's problem? Norway just collect the profit, to pay for
all this green cleansing at home?

~~~
ptah
they are looking at cutting down on oil
[https://www.worldoil.com/news/2019/9/10/voters-deliver-
warni...](https://www.worldoil.com/news/2019/9/10/voters-deliver-warning-to-
norway-s-oil-industry)

~~~
bogomipz
Well, the article states:

"In March, the Norwegian government announced it will gradually divest its
shares in companies engaged in the exploration and extraction of oil and gas.
(But it will still invest in companies that refine and sell oil.)"

I'm not really sure how you reconcile these two things - a policy of carbon
footprint reduction while actively investing in companies whose business is
predicated on oil consumption.

~~~
outside1234
Its green theater - they have no intention to actually do anything that will
stop pumping the oil from Norway.

------
spodek
I agree with Donella Meadows that top leverage points of changing systems are
its beliefs and goals
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points).

Once the idea of humans flying was beyond fantasy, now we consider it beyond a
right but a necessity. We believe nature is elsewhere, not where we live, and
contribute to local degradation, dreaming that we'll experience it elsewhere,
but flying or taking a cruise ship there.

Without tackling the beliefs and goals driving the system -- the unbridled
sense of entitlement, irresponsibility for how one's actions hurt others, the
disdain for reducing growth and maintaining wilderness where we live -- we're
rearranging the deck chairs of a sinking ship. Humans lived for hundreds of
thousands of years before flight and they weren't all miserable.

I propose promoting staycations, camping, biking, sailing, gardening, and
other ways of experiencing diversity with less pollution and more empathy and
compassion. But most of all promoting beliefs and goals other than you must
fly to be happy. That a great life comes from appreciating where you are. That
flying and cruises are dirty. Etc.

The world is too big and beautiful to see everything. When I got that, I
realized my best strategy was to enjoy here, now, us wherever I am. Then I
didn't need to travel so much despite getting more out of life.

------
sgt
Minor correction, the guy's name is Børge Ousland, not Borge.

~~~
tomcooks
It's not minor, the implications of such mistakes are enormous (especially in
the days of easy copy-pasting, semi-universal support for utf8 on the web, and
plenty of ways to do research) on a cultural level.

Poor journalism and disdain for what's foreign, the ASCII way. Vae victis.

~~~
627467
I guess it should be 艾未未 rather than Ai Weiwei then...

~~~
odiroot
I'm pretty much sure he'd be happy with Ài Wèiwèi

------
Nasrudith
Really the "problem" of overtourism feels like a stack of pretenses but it
does bring to mind an issue of concentration and trying to make a system to
help coordinate information on crowding, prices, etc. and lead tourist
distribution to become more even which would be a bit more optimal for all
involved both for enjoyment of tourists and infastructure return on investment
and reliability of industries. It almost sounds like a job for travel agencies
except for the obsolescence of their model.

------
jaclaz
Maybe it is not the case at hand in Norway, but what I see around (Italy,
Florence) is not as much as "overtourism" but rather "impolite tourism", i.e.
tourism by masses of people that for whatever reasons lack the bare minimum of
common sense and polite behaviour.

The large numbers are of course part of the problem, but it would be minimized
if tourists were behaving more properly.

~~~
geomark
Same problem in Thailand. When mainland Chinese first started coming to
Thailand in large numbers there was an outcry about their terrible behavior.
After a while the tour operators arranged for them to mostly go places where
they don't mingle with the locals. Except the really famous places like Maya
Bay got totally overrun - they just couldn't say no to the profits, despite
the trashing of what made it so attractive. Eventually the place was shutdown
to tourism for some period.
[https://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/advanced/1029745/phi-
ph...](https://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/advanced/1029745/phi-phis-maya-
bay-overcrowding-an-environmental-disaster)

------
elisharobinson
i should thing norway doesnt have a problem with tourism it has a problem with
"nature toursim" it has a problem with tourists not paying any money to stay
or explore. And im sure they might make some bull argument about
sustianability. truth is people in tents will probably cause less damage than
a climate controled carbon neutral lodge.

------
a3n
If they want to reduce over tourism _in Norway_ , they could publish a list of
"secret gems" in Finland. Sort of how Japanese banks would park money in
competing banks because it cost money to hold it.

~~~
chantelles
This is an excellent idea. I have family in rural Finland and prefer it to
Norway. Also: Helsinki is overtouristed too by cruise ships and could benefit
from some spreading out of interest. The tourist infrastructure is already
there ( I just returned from driving around the Kuopio/Oulu/Aaland/Turku
regions).

------
Thlom
The problem is mass tourism, not tourists. I’ve lived I two of the biggest
cruise destinations in Norway, and that kind of tourism is terrible. Hundreds
of mostly middle aged and old people overflow the city for a few hours and
spending next to nothing as their cruise is all inclusive. Maybe they will hop
on a bus for a guided tour to see all the sights in two hours. All the while
the cruise ship is alongside port spewing exhaust all over the city. This is
not sustainable. I take 500 German motorhomes driving 20 km/h below the speed
limit instead of a cruise ship.

~~~
thatfrenchguy
Cruises need to die, they’re horrible for the environment and local economies.

------
hos234
This is an Ad. For tourism.

------
geomark
Standing room only at Maya Bay in Thailand.
[https://static.bangkokpost.com/media/content/20160707/c1_102...](https://static.bangkokpost.com/media/content/20160707/c1_1029745_620x413.jpg)

Same effect. Made famous by a Hollywood movie. Now everybody has to say they
have been there. It is (was) nice. But there are hundreds of other equally
nice beaches and bays in the country.

------
newnewpdro
If you consider the fact that the Sherpas do all the work for the vast
majority of people "climbing" everest, they may as well just install a
climate-controlled elevator to the top, charge money to vastly more visitors,
and give the Sherpas a break.

------
outside1234
I mean this is great, but how about stopping the pumping of oil if you are
really serious about carbon?

All of this is a snowflake on top of an iceberg compared to the massive amount
of carbon they are exporting every year.

------
partiallypro
This is somewhat ironic because I am served ads to visit Norway constantly

------
buyingarmor
Overtourist is a paradox

Once they will solve this problem, they will try to chaise it again

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
No it's not. Tourism changes not just prices but character. Consider the
recent controversy over the line at Mount Everest. Queueing in line of 100
people so that you can have a minute or two at the summit to take your picture
is not the same experience as what you would've gotten climbing Mount Everest
40 years ago. It's this, the destruction of character/experience, what the
thing actually is, that is the primary symptom of overtourism.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
So? It’s a different experience, maybe even a worse one (though that’s pretty
subjective), but a lot more people get to have it.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
Let's look at the article:

>Surging visitor numbers are threatening Norway’s reigning principle of
allemannsretten—the freedom to roam, a concept popular across all of
Scandinavia. The thousand-year-old government policy states that individuals,
as long as they are polite, can legally walk through any piece of undeveloped
property and camp for one night without first obtaining the owner’s
permission. This right has worked well for centuries, but in recent years,
communities across the country are increasingly suffering from littering,
human waste, and overzealous Instagrammers.

So allemannsretten is threatening to be extinguished because it's a concept
that doesn't scale. This is the threat of tourism, experiences which cannot
scale are extinguished or priced out of reach of the average person/family. I
think if tourism actually was good in the sort of utilitarian sense you're
endorsing you wouldn't see pushback.

~~~
atomwaffel
> So allemannsretten is threatening to be extinguished because it's a concept
> that doesn't scale.

While I agree with your main point, I think it’s important to note that this
is about a handful of hotspots like Trolltunga and Pulpit Rock. I can’t see
any Scandinavian politician seriously suggesting to abolish allemannsretten as
such, and Norway has thousands and thousands of square kilometres where it is
working just fine.

------
happyman5000
Problem is tourists will then move to cheaper destinations and with that
usually comes even worse environmental consequences.

~~~
francisofascii
Not necessarily. Cheaper might mean, closer to home.

------
quacked
Everywhere there's people complaining about things like this and yet no one
says "overpopulation". If there were fewer people on the planet...

~~~
old-gregg
It's a taboo word for many reasons that are easy to explain, but mainly
because there's nothing that can be done about it. You can try and "build more
housing", you can "make it more expensive", you can "implement a lottery
system" but you can't get rid of people, so it's not a constructive
discussion.

The book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond covers this pretty well.

~~~
quacked
It's tough because it would require literally every single person caring more
about a nebulous concept of "humanity" and "longevity" than they would
themselves, their families, and the next 40 years of world issues. A seriously
smart human race would self-limit birthrates to replacement rates and focus
efforts on long-term survival mechanisms (asteroid monitoring and redirection,
wildlife and environmental management, wide-ranging health care, etc.) but
it's so hard to get people to get on board.

------
sarcasmOrTears
The State seizes money from productive people and puts them into things that
sounds good, like "tourism". This way they create a problem that then they
also force themselves in chsrge of solving, seizing even more money and
invading the lives of citizens and business

