>> Does it mean that you want to marginalise people that are not too wealthy? Because if you increase prices those better off would still be able to come. Obvi

>> Does it mean that you want to marginalise people that are not too wealthy? Because if you increase prices those better off would still be able to come. Obviously the answer to that is yes. Maybe not the ‘want to’ part, but surely the effect of taxing certain forms of tourism heavily will shut out less fortunate people. The follow-up question would be whether this is the kind of ‘unfairness’ that needs to be fixed. Maybe it’s just a fact of life we all should accept, that there will always be places that you will never visit, or activities you will never be able to experience, because they are out of reach? It has always been like this, and in some sense it will always be: even as someone fortunate enough to be able to travel all around the world, I will most likely still never be able to visit many places because it would be too expensive. What entitles me to say this is unfair and I should also be able to e.g. travel to Antarctica? Discussions like this always feel awkward because I realize I’m part of the problem. Nonetheless I sincerely think mass tourism and making every place of the world accessible to as many people as possible ruins them and spoils them for everyone, and in particular for locals who don’t benefit directly from the tourist industry. If prohibitive cost is the tool to preserve these places, so be it. There’s enough other interesting things to discover for me than some hill that featured in LoTR or some cathedral I can see on a million pictures on the internet.