
It’s time to rethink the purpose of travel - imartin2k
https://brightthemag.com/the-next-trend-in-travel-is-dont-226d4aba17f6
======
aphextron
When I was a kid I thought the greatest thing in life would be to travel
around the world, see interesting things, meet interesting people, and go to
interesting places. This in turn would make _me_ a more interesting,
worthwhile human being worthy of adoration. Somehow our generation was taught
that our experiences define us. That by getting on a plane to London and
taking some pictures somehow our lives would be more unique and amazing.

So I spent my early 20s traveling and doing just that. Seeing everything there
was to see. Doing all the things I ever dreamed of as a 16 year old kid stuck
in the midwest. Being a hobo, I guess you could say, and having all of these
"experiences" that I was sure would add up to a life of meaning. The result
was a profound lack of satisfaction, and a severe existential dread at perhaps
never finding any actual purpose.

I was lucky to settle down, go back to school, and find a passion in
programming and science which drives me toward working on bigger problems than
myself, that might help humanity in some way. But I fear that the vast
majority of people my age are still stuck in that mindset, having never got it
out of their systems. Hoping and praying that this next trip to Bali will
finally give them that satisfaction beyond filling 3 minutes in passing
cocktail party conversation.

~~~
peterlk
> I was lucky to settle down, go back to school, and find a passion in
> programming and science which drives me toward working on bigger problems
> than myself, that might help humanity in some way

This is exactly why everyone should travel. The thing that you find out is
that the rest of the world isn't so different from wherever you're from.
Perhaps the colors and shapes of the architecture and food is different, but
people are pretty much people. There are some cultural differences that are
helpful to learn too, but learning that the world is big and also that it
isn't is extremely valuable.

My lessons from traveling (I still like doing it though): You cannot run away
from yourself, taking pictures of things doesn't make you more interesting,
people like to party, people are mostly good, you get to decide what matters

~~~
jopsen
> This is exactly why everyone should travel. The thing that you find out is
> that the rest of the world isn't so different...

Maybe some people could learn the lesson without having to personally
experience it. A lacture plan that involves flying people around the globe
seems environmentally problematic.

~~~
icebraining
Unless you live on an island, traveling doesn't have to be by plane. Here in
Europe many youths get an Interrail pass[1], and you can get to Africa with a
short ferry crossing.

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

~~~
lhorie
I think you have it somewhat backwards though. Europe is small. Unless you
live in Europe, you are quite restricted in terms of how much variety you can
experience without flying. For example, a trip from San Francisco to Los
Angeles takes over 6 hours of driving (bus is even worse). And that's "just
next door" as far as US metropolitan cities go. And no, this isn't americanism
or defending car culture. Consider also that rail system coverage in South
America or Africa is severely lacking if compared to Europe. And for better or
for worse, a very large number of popular destinations are indeed insular.

Ironically, Europe is also effectively inaccessible without planes for
tourists from elsewhere (either because of geography or sheer distance)

------
elipsey
I grew up in Alaska in a town of about 30,000. The cruise ships carried ~5000
passengers, and they kept building new docks, so that there would be several
at a time docked and anchored, each of which was bigger then our 10 story
federal building. Picture a floating sky scraper. The part of town around
their piers turns into theme park in the summer. They used to make
announcements on their megaphones that I could hear from my house 2 miles
away. They dumped sewage and trash in the ocean close to nearby towns
sometimes using legal loopholes, but sometimes illegally, and were
occasionally fined for this. They also set up company stores downtown, and
bussed hundreds of people into small local parks, trails, and beaches.

The cruise companies are incorporated in low tax foreign jurisdictions,
outside the political reach of the citizens of places they visit. Sometimes
the city pushes back a bit. The last time I went home they seemed to have
eased off of the megaphones, and I heard a head tax was proposed at some point
to help clean up after the tourists and maintain the public parks, but I don’t
know if it passed. The city and state are both small enough that the cruise
companies can out-lobby locals interests quite handily. They promise jobs, but
import labor. They have PR campaigns that brag about their public service
efforts, omitting that these are court ordered, etc. It seems to me that the
ability to shop for jurisdiction creates great opportunity for legal
arbitrage. I have no idea what to do about this, but I think it’s interesting.
Maybe there’s a metaphor here… something something Panama papers. :)

~~~
koboll
>I grew up in Alaska in a town of about 30,000.

How many of those people would not be living there if not for the revenue
brought in by tourism?

Reading the article, my immediate thought was: of course the Balinese hate
tourists, when the ill effects are so obvious, and the benefits more subtle;
easy to take for granted. But where would they be economically if all the
tourists just stopped coming? I would bet the resulting recession would make
people yearn for what they once despised.

~~~
elipsey
I would guess most of them. I don't think the population has grown
proportionately with the tourist traffic. They used to only dock a couple of
smaller ships at time, which had less impact on the town.

It's the state capital, and there are also various industries. Also, tourism
jobs tend to be temporary/seasonal, and people often come from out of town to
do them for a few months and then leave. We get a hundred inches of rain a
year, and in the winter it's dark a lot so there is no tourism in the winter.

EDIT: Population has grown about 15% since 1990, but dock space has roughly
trippled, and per ship passenger capacity has substantially increased.

I haven't heard anyone suggest that tourism should be banned, just that it
would be nice for it occur at a scale similar to a few decades ago, and to
externalize costs less; e.g. refrain from illegal dumping, contribute to the
upkeep of public goods that are exploited, and only increase the population of
the town by, let's say, %20 on a given day.

------
jgh
It's a conundrum, isn't it? On one hand travel inspires people to learn about
the world and, hopefully, become more open-minded. As the article said it's
never been cheaper to travel, so people who otherwise would not have the
opportunity to do so are now able to.

But as with anything we humans touch, if we aren't careful we inadvertently
destroy it. So I wonder if there's a good solution here? The lazy one is to
make everything incredibly expensive, but why should the world be limited to
the rich (more than it already is, comparatively speaking)?

------
trevor-e
The article is trying to make the traveler feel guilty when to me the burden
falls on local governments of these tourist destinations. If there's an
impending ecological disaster isn't it in their best interest to have more
regulations, eg by increasing fines/citations, limiting visas, increasing
prices, etc?

If AirBnB is displacing local residents then ban the service, many cities have
started to do so.

If the mangroves are being destroyed then disallow tourism to that area.

Easier said than done of course since tourism is often driving the economy and
everyone wants to make a quick buck.

~~~
GavinMcG
It's really only an issue for you once there's _already_ an impending
disaster, and even then the responsibility doesn't lie with those that did the
damage?!

That's hard to swallow, for me. Do people have no moral obligations, in your
view? Is life only about the power to push back against something one doesn't
like, rather than some deeper commitment to what is right and good?

~~~
koboll
>and even then the responsibility doesn't lie with those that did the damage?!

Doesn't responsibility for a rising teen birthrate lie with the teens? Doesn't
responsibility for an opioid epidemic lie with users and traffickers? Doesn't
responsibility for gridlock lie with drivers?

In a sense, yes, but realistically, this kind of collective action problem can
only be solved at scale by governments. Telling Americans "STOP TRAVELING"
will be about as effective as telling drug lords "STOP TRAFFICKING".

~~~
GavinMcG
I agree that the collective action problem is solved by government, and that
these problems are of that sort. It's just that the language of "but... the
burden falls on local governments" makes it sound as though that _pragmatic_
reality replaces individual moral responsibility.

Especially if the problem would be even worse when we stop trying to reinforce
each other's good actions, then throwing up your hands and saying "well, it's
the government's problem" isn't good enough.

------
drukenemo
As a regular traveller for leisure and living in a major tourist destination
(Amsterdam), I've been thinking and experiencing a lot the issue of over-
tourism. However, I disagree with the article's idea that the only solution is
to stop traveling voluntarily.

Personally, I think pre-approved tourist visas will be the most efficient way
of controlling how many people can travel to a country and then regions of a
country. So, the solution already exists in part. Understandably, a few cities
and areas of a country receive most tourists. You could therefore regulate the
amount of visitors in each area by issuing location-depdendent visas. For
example: "On the chosen dates you can come to the United States, but cannot
visit New York or Florida. You may visit California, Nevada, Georgia etc etc."

It's terrifying and limiting, but realistically it's the only pro-active
solution I can think of to improve the sustainability of a place, especially
for the locals. Flight prices are likely to continue to drop and more people
will have means to travel internationally. You cannot count on people's
consciousness to address this issue.

~~~
derf_
Or you could use market dynamics to allocate a scarce resource (i.e., raise
the price): [https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/359649/tourist-
tax-...](https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/359649/tourist-tax-up-
to-35-to-be-charged)

~~~
gascan
I think people are in general becoming a little disillusioned with using
market dynamics to allocate leisure.

Nobody minds that only rich people can stay at fancy hotels. But if,
hypothetically, only rich people can set foot in New Zealand? That offends
people.

Yes, scarce resources need allocating. Market dynamics are not the _only_ way,
see lottery permits in the NPS.

------
aftbit
There are many places in the world where the local economy is driven by
tourism. Everyone would love to receive the benefits of tourism without the
drawbacks, but that's not really possible. Consider your impact when you
travel, but don't let that stop you from seeing the world.

------
jpatokal
One interesting counterexample: Bhutan. Open to all visitors, but they need to
pay $200 _per day_ for the privilege. This includes basic/3-star accommodation
and meals, you can opt to pay more if you wish and Aman has a string of
resorts with $1000/night price tags if you do.

Couple this with an authoritarian monarchy that does things like enforce local
dress code by law, and you get most of the benefits of tourism without many of
the downsides.

Of course, it's debatable how well this model would adapt to tourist
destinations that aren't obscure mountainous hermit kingdoms...

------
mihaifm
It’s not only low prices that helped tourism gain traction. It’s one of the
areas massively impacted by technology in recent years...3G/4G, online maps,
AirBnb, aviation safety ...all these allow the average teenager to take a tour
across Europe with ease. It’s a trend now that young people take a year off
between high school and university, just for travelling.

Sounds absurd but some years ago people would think twice about travelling
just because of the fear of getting lost.

------
tedmiston
It seems like many people visit Bali as tourists because of geoarbitrage —
dollar for dollar meals and housing are so much cheaper than in the states,
and overall it's a nice place to work remotely (except internet) or vacation.

It does sound like tourism has the potential to be exploitative. Maybe they
can find a way to charge more only to tourists borrowing tricks like "resort
fees" from Las Vegas. Or doubling prices and giving only residents discounts
somehow.

~~~
ImaCake
I feel like the internet in Bali is actually quite good. South-east asia has
world class internet.

~~~
tedmiston
Haven't been there myself, but I've mostly heard speeds along the lines of
"Internet: 8mbps" [1][2]. Maybe it's that we've gotten use to 100+ Mbps in the
US, or perhaps Ubud is an outlier?

[1]: [https://nomadlist.com/ubud-bali-indonesia](https://nomadlist.com/ubud-
bali-indonesia)

[2]: [https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/50033/any-fast-
in...](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/50033/any-fast-internet-
good-wifi-in-ubud-bali)

------
dzink
Depending on your brain structure and circumstances travel can have a
different effect on different people. I have some form of 4D memory - I can go
back to any place i’ve seen, including my dreams and spend time there any time
I want. The sights, the smells, the sounds. As a result I don’t feel a need to
travel to the same place twice, but I do miss the people and the food at every
place I go. So in a way with every trip, I leave a piece of me behind and I
miss it, until no place can ever be perfect for all the precious people it’s
missing.

Others I know see travel as therapy, as an escape. They photoshop the people
out of their photos to keep the place pure and go back to it by looking at
albums. They enjoy the experience of being in the warm water of a favorite
beach, and would do anything to go back there as often as possible.

Travel should not be limited, but there needs to be an international protocol
of conservationist behavior that we all abide by whenever leave home. More
people have the means to travel every year, and likely a safe thing to do
would be to print a protocol brochure/terms of travel if you will, and request
agreement from everyone as a part of the ticket purchasing or customs process.

------
rdiddly
"It's time" to stop saying "it's time" for this or that. I've noticed it,
which means being annoyed isn't far off. It's time to come up with a new way
of titling your (usually) prescriptive and preachy shit.

Nonetheless I still agree with the idea that you really don't need to go.
Going and seeing some amazing thing is usually not that amazing. Especially
when everyone else on this crowded-ass planet has the same idea. But sometimes
you have to go do it, just to figure that out.

Travel is the kind of thing where there's almost an inverse relationship
between the amount you spend and the level of "meaning" you get out of it. At
least in my experience. The trips I took "deluxe" style were pretty bland,
while the ones where I had to problem-solve, use my wits, suffer a little,
even dodge law enforcement (thinking of freight-hopping trips there) stand out
more in memory.

------
kbos87
“Traveling is a fool's paradise. Our first journeys discover to us the
indifference of places. At home I dream that at Naples, at Rome, I can be
intoxicated with beauty, and lose my sadness. I pack my trunk, embrace my
friends, embark on the sea, and at last wake up in Naples, and there beside me
is the stern fact, the sad self, unrelenting, identical, that I fled from. I
seek the Vatican, and the palaces. I affect to be intoxicated with sights and
suggestions, but I am not intoxicated. My giant goes with me wherever I go.”

------
philwelch
You know, they're not making any more land.

The world has gotten significantly richer since 1945, and a result of that is
that more and more of the world's population has the ability to travel to the
most beautiful and popular places in the world. However, this explosion in
wealth hasn't been matched by an explosion in the number of truly beautiful
and popular places in the world. The ones we do have just get more crowded.

~~~
WillPostForFood
You should see how overrun tourist spots are in China by the growing number of
domestic travelers!

------
OlivierKessler
As if Indonesia ever needed tourism to throw garbages out, even in untouristy
areas in Asia it's moutains of garbages everwhere. About the tourists being
too many, that's a country's authority to regulate tourism, by enforcing Visa
laws for example, Balinese corruption is to blame for what the place has
become, not the tourists.

------
Taniwha
best quote from the article: "why call it tourist season if we can't shoot
them"

------
peterwwillis
_" So is it possible to travel anywhere and feel OK about it?"_

 _" Ultimately, there’s only one surefire way to avoid contributing to the
problems of tourism: don’t go."_

Hello clickbait, my old friend... I've come to talk with you again... Can you
please stop over-generalizing? About the cause and effect of everything? Like
the sweat from my balls causing avalanches in Nepal? That's a little far. I
think it's time.... to flag this.

~~~
Yetanfou
While I dislike the suggestion of flagging this - just ignoring it is a much
better choice, there is enough censorship as it is - I do commend you for this
piece of poetry. It neatly fits the metrum and I can almost hear that bald
'Disturbed' singer mumble out these alternative lyrics to the sounds of
silence.

------
newnewpdro
Air travel is exceptionally affordable because the fuel is not taxed. [1] We
can curb frivolous air travel by fixing this anomoly, which is long overdue
considering the global climate situation we find ourselves in.

[1] [http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-
papers/SN00523.pdf](http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00523.pdf)

~~~
Retric
Automotive fuel is taxed to pay for roads. Aircraft pay fees to use airports
but that's independent of distance travel as that does not impact the
airports.

So, really if we want to tax CO2 we should tax all forms of CO2 equally in
addition to current taxes.

~~~
isostatic
Not in many countries. Some countries subsidise automatice fuel. In Europe
it's taxed far more than transport budgets (to contribute to the
externalities).

Pollution from 1kw of fuel in an ICE is far higher than that in a power
station too.

Most of the world has been trying to capture the externalities of carbon
emissions. It's not perfect, but we are admitting that our economy is reliant
on spending our environmental resources. Effectively borrowing to be repaid
later.

The US is pulling out of that agreement though because reasons.

~~~
Retric
> Pollution from 1kw in an ICE is far higher than that in a power plant too.

Not nessisarily automotive fuel contains both Carbon and Hydrogen. So you're
producing both CO2 and H20. Coal power plants often have higher thermal
efficiency, but that's not nessisarily enough to make up for the difference in
fuel. Further, the highest car engine is 50% fuel efficient and in cold
weather can boost a little further by using waste heat for passenger comfort.
[https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1115473_mercedes-
created...](https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1115473_mercedes-created-the-
worlds-most-efficient-racing-engine) The vast majority of automotive engines
are far lower, but many coal power plants are sub 40% where many hybrids are
over 40%.

Granted the extraction, refinement, and transportation of automotive fuel
produces CO2. But those stages can and should be taxed separately.

