If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Is tourism destroying the world? Why not? Everything else is   (edition.cnn.com) divider line 57
    More: Stupid, bhutan, indigenous cultures  
•       •       •

2984 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2014 at 2:08 PM (15 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-03 12:50:14 PM
Ironically, you can't get good Chinese food in China like you can here in the states. You can't get a sauce as thick or as sweet over there. Their food is like, steamed or something.
 
2014-01-03 02:11:31 PM
No, but tourists are farking annoying in Chicago.
"Hey let's stop on the busy walkway on this bridge and take pictures!"

And no, I'm not polite and I don't concern myself with making sure I'm not in their shot.
 
2014-01-03 02:14:26 PM
Is this one of those hipster movies where some special snowflake tourist looks down on all they other tourists because "they don't get it like I do"?
 
2014-01-03 02:14:32 PM
As a Vegas resident who avoids tourist-y areas most times...no. Tourists rock. Please continue dropping your money off in my city. Thanks!
 
2014-01-03 02:18:37 PM
CNN headlines are the news equivalent of being stuck in a dead-end relationship with an idiot.
"What are you thinking, sweetie?"
"Oh, I don't know. I guess I was wondering if tourism was going to destroy the world."
 
2014-01-03 02:19:13 PM
The one example of the negative consequences of "tourism" was after the Full-Moon party in Thailand due to litter. So, because of that, tourism as a whole is destroying the world? Tourism is great. The fact that people can connect with other cultures or regions broadens their understanding of the world, moves money around, and allows for otherwise worthless economic areas to be able to pull in some income. There are plenty of places that simply would not exist at all without tourists. I would wager that the film creators are the douchey-kind that are upset that their Burning Man, Apogea, and other drug fests are being encroached upon by "unwanteds" that are not as communal as them.
 
2014-01-03 02:19:26 PM
One story will say that tourist and their dollars are helping to save a wild area, now a story saying that the tourist are screwing everything up.  I'm tired of the perpetual whining and some jerk telling us what "we" have to do to save "them".  I feel we should "Well, bye!", the rest of the farking world.
 
2014-01-03 02:20:25 PM
Using dramatic examples from different continents, such as the devastating impact of hedonistic full moon beach parties on Thailand's Koh Pha Ngan island, the film is moving and informative, if sometimes elementary.

I'm not sure how littering is restricted to tourists.  When drunken Aussies riot at the beach every year we don't blame the condition of not being a tourist.  Regardless, developing countries are more than capable of farking up their own ecosystems.  This has been the story since the Industrial Revolution began.

I get her point and it's a common one.  She wants these areas to remain unknown and unspoiled, but that's essentially forcing the citizens to live in an unspoiled (re: undeveloped) state.  It's treating them like zoo animals for what you perceive to be their own good.
 
2014-01-03 02:20:27 PM
i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-01-03 02:20:37 PM
Tourists have ruined NYC. Total lack of subway etiquette, clogging up restaurants, believing they have the right to be jerks because they're on vacation, drive up the prices of everything, etc.
 
2014-01-03 02:20:42 PM

Frank N Stein: No, but tourists are farking annoying in Chicago.
"Hey let's stop on the busy walkway on this bridge and take pictures!"

And no, I'm not polite and I don't concern myself with making sure I'm not in their shot.


So, that was you!
 
2014-01-03 02:21:47 PM
This is why G-Dubs declared war on tourism in 2001.
 
2014-01-03 02:22:25 PM
zimbomba63:I feel we should "Well, bye!", the rest of the farking world.

It works for North Korea.
 
2014-01-03 02:23:37 PM
Jersey Shore tourists are funny, we call them Bennies. Bad drivers, anxious to get as close to the beach as possible, bringing every Chinese made lead-based beach product imaginable they bought at Wal-Mart. But the good thing is that they bring in the tourist dollars, bad thing is that they either act like they own the place, or worse have seen the show The Jersey Shore and think all of New Jersey is like that so the Bennies mimic those stereotypical assholes when these tourists visit around my area (or Seaside Heights).
 
2014-01-03 02:27:10 PM

thornhill: Tourists have ruined NYC. Total lack of subway etiquette, clogging up restaurants, believing they have the right to be jerks because they're on vacation, drive up the prices of everything, etc.


Tell me about it, I'm sure NYC would be much better off without the  ~$36 to $55 billion dollars tourist bring into the city every year.
 
2014-01-03 02:38:57 PM
No no no. We can't have our culture interacting with other cultures. Less developed countries need to be sanitized and placed in snowglobes so they won't be infected by our wicked Western ideals of equality, sanitation, and democracy. I once went to Africa and saw that most people had cell phones! Western imperialism at its finest. They shouldn't be allowed that sort of technology! It completely destroyed my perception of Africa as a land untouched by even the barest concepts of civilized life. Next thing you know they'll want to build power plants and roads in order to improve their standards of living. But what about the environment? We Europeans completely sanitized and irreversibly redesigned our environment around human needs, so it's our responsibility to make sure that poor countries don't do the same by attempting to create infrastructure which might improve their economies.
 
2014-01-03 02:39:58 PM
Just look at what happened to Bethselamin...
 
2014-01-03 02:40:11 PM

DarkSoulNoHope: Jersey Shore tourists are funny, we call them Bennies. Bad drivers, anxious to get as close to the beach as possible, bringing every Chinese made lead-based beach product imaginable they bought at Wal-Mart. But the good thing is that they bring in the tourist dollars, bad thing is that they either act like they own the place, or worse have seen the show The Jersey Shore and think all of New Jersey is like that so the Bennies mimic those stereotypical assholes when these tourists visit around my area (or Seaside Heights).


Go on, vent it all out...like this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz2LaJOVAiA
 
2014-01-03 02:43:52 PM
Sex tourism is ruining Uranus.
 
2014-01-03 02:50:20 PM
Well, I'm trying to see as much of the world as possible before it's wrecked by tourists.
 
2014-01-03 02:50:36 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: DarkSoulNoHope: Jersey Shore tourists are funny, we call them Bennies. Bad drivers, anxious to get as close to the beach as possible, bringing every Chinese made lead-based beach product imaginable they bought at Wal-Mart. But the good thing is that they bring in the tourist dollars, bad thing is that they either act like they own the place, or worse have seen the show The Jersey Shore and think all of New Jersey is like that so the Bennies mimic those stereotypical assholes when these tourists visit around my area (or Seaside Heights).

Go on, vent it all out...like this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz2LaJOVAiA


Spell it with a K? Well I never thought of that!
 
2014-01-03 03:02:54 PM

j__z: thornhill: Tourists have ruined NYC. Total lack of subway etiquette, clogging up restaurants, believing they have the right to be jerks because they're on vacation, drive up the prices of everything, etc.

Tell me about it, I'm sure NYC would be much better off without the  ~$36 to $55 billion dollars tourist bring into the city every year.


I question how much of the economic impact is really felt by the average New Yorker.

First, all of the service jobs related to tourism have horrible salaries (hotel, restaurants, retail stores). These people make so little money that they're paying next to nothing in taxes (if anything at all) and having little disposable income.

Next, it seems likely that tourists are spending most of their money at places owned by out of town corporations, such as hotels, restaurant and retail chains (basically the entire Times Square region). How much of their spending actually goes into local businesses?

Obviously the city benefits from the sales tax -- I can't argue with that.
 
2014-01-03 03:03:23 PM

DarkSoulNoHope: Jersey Shore tourists are funny, we call them Bennies. Bad drivers, anxious to get as close to the beach as possible, bringing every Chinese made lead-based beach product imaginable they bought at Wal-Mart. But the good thing is that they bring in the tourist dollars, bad thing is that they either act like they own the place, or worse have seen the show The Jersey Shore and think all of New Jersey is like that so the Bennies mimic those stereotypical assholes when these tourists visit around my area (or Seaside Heights).


After Sandy they started going to Delaware. I learned what Bennies was from fark and I have shared that with my parents and now they use it. It gives me a laugh.

Tourist season in DC amps up during the cherry blossoms blooming and just gets worse and worse from there.
 
2014-01-03 03:07:35 PM
A lot of these places are dependent on tourism dollars. Try telling the guy eking out a meager living selling t-shirts and hand carved wood animal sculptures to tourists that tourism is destroying his world.
 
2014-01-03 03:08:15 PM

CleanAndPure: Sex tourism is ruining Uranus.


If you are a Cuban boy and Rush is in town
 
2014-01-03 03:08:31 PM

Frank N Stein: No, but tourists are farking annoying in Chicago.
"Hey let's stop on the busy walkway on this bridge and take pictures!"

And no, I'm not polite and I don't concern myself with making sure I'm not in their shot.


Worst city in which I've ever spent any amount of time, and I have been to Calcutta.
 
2014-01-03 03:33:24 PM

j__z: thornhill
Tell me about it, I'm sure NYC would be much better off without the  ~$36 to $55 billion dollars tourist bring into the city every year.


It looks like a big number on its own, but to NYC, its not so bad. Yeah, the loss would be felt (but first, cut that number in half, as 20-30B is spent by business travelers, not tourists), but NYC would still go on. The amount of money generated in this city is enormous.

Compared to cities like Rome, or Paris, tourism dollars is a lesser need to survive.
 
2014-01-03 03:36:04 PM
Bad news everyone.  There is no such thing as consistent indigenous culture.  All cultures, indigenous or not, are in a constant state of evolution.  Actually, this is mostly a good thing, as with that evolution, normally comes an improvement in lifestyle.  Or we could all become Amish or something.
 
2014-01-03 03:36:49 PM
In Washington the tourists stand on the wrong side of the escalators in the Metro.
 
2014-01-03 03:41:17 PM
www.fodors.com

1,200 TONS of bunker oil a week. The answer is yes subby. I'm assuming the stupid tag is for yourself.
 
2014-01-03 03:48:25 PM

AlHarris31: Is this one of those hipster movies where some special snowflake tourist looks down on all they other tourists because "they don't get it like I do"?


And empathizes for the local who has to subjugate themselves to gouging him for $3 for a plate of phat thai that cost .25 cents to make, when they could rather work in rice patty working 12 hours of back breaking labor for pennies a day like the previous generations ....... before before the tourists came in and ruined everything.

 Don't they know that the locals are there to provide the backdrop for my idyllic adventure pic?   How am I going to make anyone jealous on facebook uploading a picture with a KFC sign in the backdrop?
 
2014-01-03 03:50:54 PM

Frank N Stein: No, but tourists are farking annoying in Chicago.
"Hey let's stop on the busy walkway on this bridge and take pictures!"

And no, I'm not polite and I don't concern myself with making sure I'm not in their shot.


Yeah, I frequently walked to work from the Gold Coast to the Loop for a couple of years. It always annoyed me when self-absorbed dicks treated the tourists like that.
 
2014-01-03 03:56:02 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

I blame her.
 
2014-01-03 04:04:54 PM
rlv.zcache.com
 
2014-01-03 04:08:01 PM

zimbomba63: One story will say that tourist and their dollars are helping to save a wild area, now a story saying that the tourist are screwing everything up.  I'm tired of the perpetual whining and some jerk telling us what "we" have to do to save "them".  I feel we should "Well, bye!", the rest of the farking world.


Well, the place where those two things come together is, tourism is better when it's actually managed by local people, or they at least have some input into things.  The article does touch on that.

But absolutely the various "oh, any tourism is just bad!!" articles popping up these days are missing the mark, I think, particularly when so many places around the world are now TRYING to have a tourism industry.
 
2014-01-03 04:09:01 PM

sigdiamond2000: Ironically, you can't get good Chinese food in China like you can here in the states. You can't get a sauce as thick or as sweet over there. Their food is like, steamed or something.


Gutter oil.
 
2014-01-03 04:10:45 PM
Puerto Vallarta was once pristine jungle, accessible to the outer world only by speedboat. Then John Huston went there in 1963 to film 'Night of the Iguana', which received a huge amount of publicity because of Liz and Dick. Within a decade it became a highly-developed resort, and lost its quaint charm.

Years later someone asked Huston whether he regretted having contributed to the 'overcivilization' of the area, and he said no, because the residents were able to get jobs and earn money to buy food for their families and to have access to education and medical care for their children. He said it was worth all that.
 
2014-01-03 04:13:57 PM

Rapmaster2000: I get her point and it's a common one.  She wants these areas to remain unknown and unspoiled, but that's essentially forcing the citizens to live in an unspoiled (re: undeveloped) state.  It's treating them like zoo animals for what you perceive to be their own good.


Indeed.   Some time ago I read a blog by a white guy who was travelling to Thailand, and he wrote about how upsetting it was to see the young boy monks in their orange robes wearing... plastic beach sandals with Japanese cartoon characters on them.

Because heaven forbid the kids be into the same cartoons kids across Asia are.
 
2014-01-03 04:14:13 PM
Having lived in Manhattan, I can say that I am willing to put up with living in a dead end town now (Troy, NY) specifically because almost nobody comes here without some real intended purpose (university, court, jail).    Tourists dollars are like crack to a city.  It begins to think about nothing but getting more tourist dollars and everything useful goes to hell while it does.
 
2014-01-03 04:18:23 PM
I traveled to Laos and found the people using modern machinery.   It totally ruined  my vacation ....err authentic explorations into an indiginous culture.    At one point I actually had to ask  the locals if they could put down the electric miter saw and gather some rocks and make it look like they were still using stone tools so I could take a picture.  They just looked at me funny.   I even asked one particularly skinny local if lay if he would lay on the ground and writhe in pain as if he were dying from malaria, so I could put a picture of it up on facebook and make all of my friends back home jealous.   He wouldn't even play along.  The worst part was the food.   The horrors of it were indescribable.   Not one grilled rare  pig anus or tarantula to be seen.  I was forced to eat a pizza.   I didn't even get a half way decent case of food poisoning.   Not one story to take home of visiting the local clinic hunched over in abdominal pain, laying on a cot next to people dying of AIDS, waiting for my turn on the communally shared IV bag.   Such a bummer.   I was left with no choice but to give it 1 star on Trip Adviser.
 
2014-01-03 04:19:16 PM

itazurakko: Rapmaster2000: I get her point and it's a common one.  She wants these areas to remain unknown and unspoiled, but that's essentially forcing the citizens to live in an unspoiled (re: undeveloped) state.  It's treating them like zoo animals for what you perceive to be their own good.

Indeed.   Some time ago I read a blog by a white guy who was travelling to Thailand, and he wrote about how upsetting it was to see the young boy monks in their orange robes wearing... plastic beach sandals with Japanese cartoon characters on them.

Because heaven forbid the kids be into the same cartoons kids across Asia are.


Or have shoes to begin with.  The question to this type of attitude is, why shouldn't they want what they want?  Why shouldn't they want what the developed world has?
 
2014-01-03 04:43:31 PM
Look what tourism has done to New Jersey....

New Jersey Vacation, proof you don't know any better.
 
2014-01-03 05:00:54 PM
This is as true in "developed" nations as in undeveloped ones. I've lived in Florida and Hawaii, and anyone who is here can see that lots of natural land has been turned into pavement and buildings, and the shoreline is packed with development. Reefs have suffered badly as well.  Tourism and population growth are the cause.

The question that remains is "how do we deal with a growing population and lots of tourists without bulldozing everything, building right up to the waterline, and having shiatloads of runnoff problems from the newly citified areas and resorts and golf courses?"

Ultimately I think the problem has more to do with money getting in the way of regulation than anything else. You can say development should be placed back from the shoreline, or wetlands should be protected, but who is going to write the law? A lawmaker who is being paid off by the resort owners. Even if he's NOT being actively bribed, he's going to say "screw that, if we all make money and there are more jobs I get reelected, and nobody will remember that I farked up the reef because nobody gives a shiat". And he would be right to think that, because nobody gives a shiat about the environment, except for some impotent hippies (like me).

Money is ALWAYS more important than a clean environment, or living reefs and forests, or the lives of any non-human thing, at least to 99% of people.
 
2014-01-03 05:33:18 PM
Featuring footage from Bolivia, Thailand, Mali and Bhutan, "Gringo Trails" looks at the impact of unplanned tourism growth in developing countries.

Not the same thing as "is tourism destroying the world".
 
2014-01-03 05:36:42 PM
tourism =/ unplanned, unregluated tourism (which is the subject FTFA)

or do you want to just let people run rampant over the pyramids or moai, breaking off stalagmites in caves, destoying mangroves to build hotels etc.  We could ask the people who've lost their fishing rights to areas being sold off to foreign hotels where hardly any of the money stays in the country meanwhile lagoons get dredged and reefs dying.

anything that raises awareness of unstainable tourist practices including the environmental problems of hotels and cruiseships is fine by me. 3rd world countries might be too corrupt to manage their own tourist industries sustainably but the demand is fuelling it.
 
2014-01-03 05:40:34 PM

adamatari: This is as true in "developed" nations as in undeveloped ones. I've lived in Florida and Hawaii, and anyone who is here can see that lots of natural land has been turned into pavement and buildings, and the shoreline is packed with development. Reefs have suffered badly as well.  Tourism and population growth are the cause.

The question that remains is "how do we deal with a growing population and lots of tourists without bulldozing everything, building right up to the waterline, and having shiatloads of runnoff problems from the newly citified areas and resorts and golf courses?"

Ultimately I think the problem has more to do with money getting in the way of regulation than anything else. You can say development should be placed back from the shoreline, or wetlands should be protected, but who is going to write the law? A lawmaker who is being paid off by the resort owners. Even if he's NOT being actively bribed, he's going to say "screw that, if we all make money and there are more jobs I get reelected, and nobody will remember that I farked up the reef because nobody gives a shiat". And he would be right to think that, because nobody gives a shiat about the environment, except for some impotent hippies (like me).

Money is ALWAYS more important than a clean environment, or living reefs and forests, or the lives of any non-human thing, at least to 99% of people.


How do we reach a compromise though? It is understandable wanting to protect some things from development and preserve it, but it is not rational to want to protect everything from development. Likewise, it is understandable to want to develop some things, but not rational to develop everywhere. The folks "against" development have the same mentality of their perceived nemeses do, just with a different end-goal. Knowing where to draw the line is important and both sides need to be practical. You are absolutely right also, money is a great influence. If you want to protect something, you are either going to need a hell of a lot of conviction and time + connections, or you are going to need to prove that by keeping your area protected or free of development, you can provide such a positive result either by it being a destination/research and learning tool or the well-being of the ecosystem.

This is the thing that hippies get upset about and don't understand. You have to beat them at their own game. Just because you might have a good idea or the right idea, does not mean a thing.
 
2014-01-03 05:52:00 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: [www.fodors.com image 434x248]

1,200 TONS of bunker oil a week. The answer is yes subby. I'm assuming the stupid tag is for yourself.


An interesting shot I snapped on the bridge of a Holland America cruise ship a few years back - a couple fuel meters they rigged up:

On the left - fuel consumption, in US dollars per minute. On the right - cubic meters of fuel, per mile
scontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net
/it was a 35-day cruise. We steamed at this rate for at least 20 days, 24 hours a day.
 
2014-01-03 05:58:43 PM

adamatari: Money is ALWAYS more important than a clean environment, or living reefs and forests, or the lives of any non-human thing, at least to 99% of people.


It's not so much a question of money vs environment.  It's more a "lots of cash NOW" versus "modest income that will last for decades."  Sustainability is the issue.  The first tragedy is that 99% of humans opt to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

The second tragedy is the element of prisoner's dilemma to the tourism question, too, because the decision to kill the goose comes from knowing that if you don't someone else, will.  If everybody sat down, talked it out, agreed it was best to keep the goose alive and divvy up the eggs fairly, you could have sustainable tourism and everybody would win.  But getting people to agree to a fair compromise that works best in the long run is notoriously difficult.
 
2014-01-03 06:10:18 PM
It's basically a backpacker that's grumpy about having so much company.  Brace yourself.  It's about to get a lot worse.  It's not just Westerner's getting off the beaten track now.
 
2014-01-03 06:10:43 PM

ciberido: adamatari: Money is ALWAYS more important than a clean environment, or living reefs and forests, or the lives of any non-human thing, at least to 99% of people.

It's not so much a question of money vs environment.  It's more a "lots of cash NOW" versus "modest income that will last for decades."  Sustainability is the issue.  The first tragedy is that 99% of humans opt to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

The second tragedy is the element of prisoner's dilemma to the tourism question, too, because the decision to kill the goose comes from knowing that if you don't someone else, will.  If everybody sat down, talked it out, agreed it was best to keep the goose alive and divvy up the eggs fairly, you could have sustainable tourism and everybody would win.  But getting people to agree to a fair compromise that works best in the long run is notoriously difficult.


Isn't that why we have the US Forest Registry? Isn't that our collective "Hey, this area is special let's agree not to do any bad shiat to it, k?" The problem is getting this to occur on a global level. You have nations that by and large don't care at all and that isn't our place to do anything about it. Although it belongs to the "world," that is out of our jurisdiction. Historic landmarks, etc. have been identified and protected. Not everywhere is special enough to be worth "keeping".
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report