7 ms·

Always worth posting Wallace's quote on the subject: "To be a mass tourist, for me, is to become a pure late-date American: alien, ignorant, greedy for somethi

Always worth posting Wallace's quote on the subject: "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 noneconomic 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." A similar phenomenon is happening in the outdoor industry. Instagram is (depending on your perspective) ruining everything or democratizing access to natural beauty. Most people I know practice some variant of a digital leave-no-trace rule: don't post photos in publicly-trafficked areas of the internet, or if you do then don't say where they were taken. It's not so much gatekeeping as ensuring people who want to experience that beauty have to put in the work - read terribly-designed websites, meet actual people and gain their trust, or even take a backcountry travel class which hopefully instills a healthy respect for the environment you're enjoying. Another strategy is to delve further into mountaineering, where the obvious danger of the terrain repels everybody with a working survival instinct and ensures some degree of solitude :)

trentmb 8y ago
> It's not so much gatekeeping as ensuring people who want to experience that beauty have to put in the work - read terribly-designed websites, meet actual people and gain their trust, or even take a backcountry travel class which hopefully instills a healthy respect for the environment you're enjoying. Or we could build more walls.
- trentmb 8y ago
  Not sure why I got downvoted- why shouldn't these people be denied access to a certain geographical area and all its splendors before undergoing some, say, "naturalization" process?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ryanianian 8y ago
    Your original comment was snarky (with a borderline political bent given current US politics), and your followup doesn't really expand on the conversation any further than your first comment. If you're trying to say "tourist locations could require more of their visitors," you could elaborate on this point and say why you believe this would solve the problem that the article presents.
    - trentmb 8y ago
      My comments were in bad faith, parodying anti-immigrant rhetoric. Thank you for being patient enough to post the level headed comment you did.
mavdi 8y ago
> you become economically significant but existentially loathsome Ouch
- notacoward 8y ago
  I think "economically significant but existentially loathsome" also describes elitists/materialists who believe that only rich people should get to enjoy beautiful surroundings even part of the time. So it's an apt phrase, but probably not in the way ahelwer meant.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  This Wallace guy is certainly proud of his opinions, I'll say that for him. The important thing is that he's found a way to feel superior to pretty much everybody. I especially like how he can write something as prescriptive as, "To be a mass tourist, for me, is to become a pure late-date American, alien, ignorant, greedy..." while literally admitting that he can speak only for himself ("for me."). The greatest magicians are the ones who come right out and tell you that they're going to try to snow you, and then proceed to do so.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"alien, ignorant, greedy for something you cannot ever have" I find this hugely classist. (Edit: and I'm generally not someone to use that terminology) Most (even American) travellers are just trying to see some sights, have a normal and are not particularly rude or problematic. The issue is now that 'everyone' can afford to travel ... it's causing problems. This is a problem of prosperity.
- chrispeel 8y ago
  "alien, ignorant, greedy for something you cannot ever have" I find this hugely classist. I thought the quote was going more for a "leave-no-trace" approach to interacting w the world. Clean up your physical and digital trash so that it doesn't destroy the experience for others.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  It's the zoo problem all over again. Animal-rights advocates frequently argue, not without some justification, that it's unethical and exploitative to capture wild animals and lock them up in cages so that we can gawk at them. So let's follow their advice in a hypothetical sense and get rid of zoos, circuses, even pet stores. Fast-forward a generation or two and let's imagine how that might turn out. The people from which those very organizations draw their membership will have never seen an elephant or a tiger -- or, for the city-dwellers among them, even a deer or a rabbit -- in real life. These are also the same people who vote for Congressional representatives to pass or repeal conservation laws. In this hypothetical future, volunteers from the animal-rights organization will go door-to-door canvassing for votes or petition signatures, just as they do today... except no one will have the faintest idea what they're talking about. The activists will find that they might as well be asking their contributors to save the T-Rexes in Jurassic Park. What's the difference? They're all just pixels on a screen. Tourism works the same way, IMO. It may have harmful aspects, but the effects of completely eliminating it will be worse. And decrying "mass tourism," as Wallace puts it, is nothing but code for "Only a few wealthy people should get to experience this."
  - wwweston 8y ago
DanAndersen 8y ago
The hedonic rush of social media is an unfortunate aspect to modern travel. Vacations and trips have always had the aspect where the traveler plans how to tell friends/family about the trip after the fact. However, I've caught myself mentally planning out a social media post about something I'm seeing right at the moment. I wonder how we would treat our travels differently if somehow we were not allowed to share anything visual with other people. There's something diminished that happens when it becomes so easy, so low-effort, to capture something about a place you're in. You don't have to observe or be in the moment; you just run from place to place collecting views you can horde in exchange for likes and clicks. It's a mechanization/industrialization of experience.
- mi100hael 8y ago
  I go back and forth on this. On the one hand, I find it silly that literally millions of people take the exact same shot of things like the clock tower in the old town square of Prague and then post them online for a few cheap "likes." But if I didn't shoot a few photos there, I might not remember the great meal I had seated at the base with a few friends that was such an enjoyable time. Small details fade, but photos I personally took jog the memory.
  - scraft 8y ago
    For me the fact there are 1 million pictures of that clock online is irrelevant. People follow others on Instagram either because they are interested in what the person does or they find the other places and pictures interesting which have been posted in the past and would like to see more. No one can see everything in the world so it is more like curating it, you follow a bunch of curators, see a bunch of stuff, for some stuff a photo is enough, for others it makes you want to see it yourself. I have had loads of travel ideas from Instagram and have visited lots of places after seeing posts on Instagram.
    - kthejoker2 8y ago
      This tempts me to go grab a set of "Prague tourist photos" and just make up a fake trip. Just be upfront: I didn't take a trip to Prague, but here's what it would look like it I did. Just as curated, just as personal, just as compelling as any brochure. Oh look this guy who's into craft beer and chess history wrote up a hypothetical trip to St. Petersburg, check it out. Or better, a startup idea: tell us where you're going on vacation and we'll produce your social media posts accordingly. You just enjoy your vacation and we'll get you all the likes.
torpfactory 8y ago
I am sadly very familiar with your second paragraph. Wilderness areas which were once quiet most of the year now hum with activity from even before the snow is completely melted to after the first fresh flakes of autumn arrive. These areas can be remarkably sensitive, and most lack the trail and human-waste infrastructure to handle the new crowds. These new users often lack training in leave-no-trace principles and result in blown-out trails and piles of used toilet paper behind every nearby tree. I suspect that our cash-strapped parks and forest services will impose visitor limits instead of expanding infrastructure. For those with the skills to navigate confidently off trail, there are still many quiet corners of our ranges to explore. For the rest, the future looks a lot busier.
- jogjayr 8y ago
  > These new users often lack training in leave-no-trace principles and result in blown-out trails and piles of used toilet paper behind every nearby tree. I suspect that our cash-strapped parks and forest services will impose visitor limits instead of expanding infrastructure. Look at the upside though. More visitors means justification for more funding. And more voters who will raise a fuss if that funding isn't provided. You can always train newbs to get better. There's a thousand entertainment choices competing for people's attention today. Most of them are easier than packing a 20lb backpack and tramping off into the woods. On balance I'd say more people venturing outdoors is better than them staying home.
ledriveby 8y ago
I can't escape the Bluetooth speakers on the slopes or the hiking trails anymore.
- paulcole 8y ago
  In bear country it’s just good safety.
darkerside 8y ago
For the record, this is literally gatekeeping. That's ok, just own it.
notacoward 8y ago
> places that in all noneconomic ways would be better, realer, without you Have you ever considered how the actual residents of those places feel? Even for a moment? I'm sure some of them would prefer a return to a more "authentic" condition, but I'll bet the great majority are pretty happy for the $$$ that tourism brings in (or in some cases for the public goods those $$$ buy and that they enjoy). They don't have some duty to maintain things in a pristine state, at cost to their own quality of life, so that those oh-so-precious few who have the money or time to "make the effort" can come see them without the hordes of less privileged following.
jcurbo 8y ago
"Most people I know practice some variant of a digital leave-no-trace rule: don't post photos in publicly-trafficked areas of the internet, or if you do then don't say where they were taken. It's not so much gatekeeping as ensuring people who want to experience that beauty have to put in the work - read terribly-designed websites, meet actual people and gain their trust, or even take a backcountry travel class which hopefully instills a healthy respect for the environment you're enjoying." This is sheer nonsense and IS ridiculous gatekeeping. Ensuring people who want to experience beauty need to put in work for it? Some people may never be able to visit these places, not everyone is so fortunate to be able to afford or have time off to travel. You might as well say they should never look at book of photos either, or they can never look at a painting without becoming an artist first. Maybe they would never gain a love of the outdoors if they had never seen some of these photos first and wanted to see more? Now, I agree with the sentiment that there can be tourist overload on places, and that they should be managed well so they aren't destroyed. But 'digital leave no trace' is just nonsense. We should be sharing the beauty of the world, not restricting it.
- Roritharr 8y ago
  I agree, the absurdity of the notion of digital gatekeeping of beauty becomes apparent if we think what the first pictures of our planet from space have done for the ecology movement. People need to experience to connect. Take that away and living in air conditioned condos and driving big diesel SUVs to the next strip mall for your latte is just how the world is supposed to be.
- ahelwer 8y ago
  It seems like you're assessing this in a very abstract way, as evidenced by your "what if we took this logic to the extreme" examples. I assure you your perspective changes once you have skin in the game and are invested in an activity which is substantially diminished by the introduction of a large number of uncaring people.
  - eanzenberg 8y ago
    Literally the same argument was made when blacks tried to move into predominately white neighborhoods. “Oh it’s never been the same since, we had to leave to a more exclusive town.” As long as gates break down new ones will emerge. That surfing spot down thr road is now 5x busy as it was a decade ago? Doesn’t matter, those with means already moved onwards to the better exclusive spot on some remote island.
usaphp 8y ago
How is this nonsense being upvoted?
noelsusman 8y ago
That quote is pretentious nonsense, and you can claim it's not gatekeeping all you want, but you're describing gatekeeping.
natso100 8y ago
I completely agree with your comment about democratizing of our outdoors with mediums like Instagram. They provide a phenomenal view into the beauty of our planet, but open that beauty to a lot of bad actors, or, at least, ignorant actors. Fortunately, there are a few 'grammers who adhere to digital leave no trace and always leave a blurb about the real 'leave no trace' within each post. I would love that to be the norm. From a personal level, I came to the same logical conclusion as you - push ever deeper into nature via mountaineering, bc skiing, etc. At the end of the day though am I not just a hypocritical ass? I can explore further into nature due to gps, maps, synthetic materials, lightweight AT ski gear, etc. Are not the 'original' explorers just looking at me like I look at the wave of new 'for the gram' hikers?
- ahelwer 8y ago
  Of course the original explorers feel that way! Heck, I sport climb, which at one point was nearly grounds for a beating in some circles. I think people worry too much about hypocrisy. Arguments of the form "you believe X, but if we take X to its logical extreme then you yourself run afoul of X!" lost all weight with me a long time ago. Sure, in the long run all attempts to avoid the crowd fails, and of course you yourself are part of "the crowd" to some people. But human life doesn't take place in the long run, it happens in the time preceding it. I can enjoy my favorite backcountry spots (which I learned about from someone else, and so on) for some number of years before they are overrun with crowds, but the inevitability of them being run over by crowds does not take away those years.
tluyben2 8y ago
I notice that for 99% of the places we go, if we just hike 10 minutes from the ‘touristic entrypoint’, places are deserted unless you can get there by car. Even in extremely densely packed places like Hong Kong or tourist places where in the weekend many people go walking; if you just go a bit further, there is no one for hours. You do not need to go mountaineering for that. A lot of people like nature but abhor walking, so in places like in Spain where I go often you see hundreds of tourists on the picnic place deep in the forest on the mountain you can drive to, but, again, 10 minutes walk on a solid nice path which is forbidden for cars, you will find no people at all. Even or maybe especially in high season (walking in heat seems even worse for people; I love it).

trentmb 8y ago

> It's not so much gatekeeping as ensuring people who want to experience that beauty have to put in the work - read terribly-designed websites, meet actual people and gain their trust, or even take a backcountry travel class which hopefully instills a healthy respect for the environment you're enjoying. Or we could build more walls.

trentmb 8y ago
Not sure why I got downvoted- why shouldn't these people be denied access to a certain geographical area and all its splendors before undergoing some, say, "naturalization" process?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ryanianian 8y ago
  Your original comment was snarky (with a borderline political bent given current US politics), and your followup doesn't really expand on the conversation any further than your first comment. If you're trying to say "tourist locations could require more of their visitors," you could elaborate on this point and say why you believe this would solve the problem that the article presents.
  - trentmb 8y ago
    My comments were in bad faith, parodying anti-immigrant rhetoric. Thank you for being patient enough to post the level headed comment you did.

mavdi 8y ago

> you become economically significant but existentially loathsome Ouch

notacoward 8y ago
I think "economically significant but existentially loathsome" also describes elitists/materialists who believe that only rich people should get to enjoy beautiful surroundings even part of the time. So it's an apt phrase, but probably not in the way ahelwer meant.
CamperBob2 8y ago
This Wallace guy is certainly proud of his opinions, I'll say that for him. The important thing is that he's found a way to feel superior to pretty much everybody. I especially like how he can write something as prescriptive as, "To be a mass tourist, for me, is to become a pure late-date American, alien, ignorant, greedy..." while literally admitting that he can speak only for himself ("for me."). The greatest magicians are the ones who come right out and tell you that they're going to try to snow you, and then proceed to do so.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"alien, ignorant, greedy for something you cannot ever have" I find this hugely classist. (Edit: and I'm generally not someone to use that terminology) Most (even American) travellers are just trying to see some sights, have a normal and are not particularly rude or problematic. The issue is now that 'everyone' can afford to travel ... it's causing problems. This is a problem of prosperity.

chrispeel 8y ago
"alien, ignorant, greedy for something you cannot ever have" I find this hugely classist. I thought the quote was going more for a "leave-no-trace" approach to interacting w the world. Clean up your physical and digital trash so that it doesn't destroy the experience for others.
CamperBob2 8y ago
It's the zoo problem all over again. Animal-rights advocates frequently argue, not without some justification, that it's unethical and exploitative to capture wild animals and lock them up in cages so that we can gawk at them. So let's follow their advice in a hypothetical sense and get rid of zoos, circuses, even pet stores. Fast-forward a generation or two and let's imagine how that might turn out. The people from which those very organizations draw their membership will have never seen an elephant or a tiger -- or, for the city-dwellers among them, even a deer or a rabbit -- in real life. These are also the same people who vote for Congressional representatives to pass or repeal conservation laws. In this hypothetical future, volunteers from the animal-rights organization will go door-to-door canvassing for votes or petition signatures, just as they do today... except no one will have the faintest idea what they're talking about. The activists will find that they might as well be asking their contributors to save the T-Rexes in Jurassic Park. What's the difference? They're all just pixels on a screen. Tourism works the same way, IMO. It may have harmful aspects, but the effects of completely eliminating it will be worse. And decrying "mass tourism," as Wallace puts it, is nothing but code for "Only a few wealthy people should get to experience this."
- wwweston 8y ago

DanAndersen 8y ago

The hedonic rush of social media is an unfortunate aspect to modern travel. Vacations and trips have always had the aspect where the traveler plans how to tell friends/family about the trip after the fact. However, I've caught myself mentally planning out a social media post about something I'm seeing right at the moment. I wonder how we would treat our travels differently if somehow we were not allowed to share anything visual with other people. There's something diminished that happens when it becomes so easy, so low-effort, to capture something about a place you're in. You don't have to observe or be in the moment; you just run from place to place collecting views you can horde in exchange for likes and clicks. It's a mechanization/industrialization of experience.

mi100hael 8y ago
I go back and forth on this. On the one hand, I find it silly that literally millions of people take the exact same shot of things like the clock tower in the old town square of Prague and then post them online for a few cheap "likes." But if I didn't shoot a few photos there, I might not remember the great meal I had seated at the base with a few friends that was such an enjoyable time. Small details fade, but photos I personally took jog the memory.
- scraft 8y ago
  For me the fact there are 1 million pictures of that clock online is irrelevant. People follow others on Instagram either because they are interested in what the person does or they find the other places and pictures interesting which have been posted in the past and would like to see more. No one can see everything in the world so it is more like curating it, you follow a bunch of curators, see a bunch of stuff, for some stuff a photo is enough, for others it makes you want to see it yourself. I have had loads of travel ideas from Instagram and have visited lots of places after seeing posts on Instagram.
  - kthejoker2 8y ago
    This tempts me to go grab a set of "Prague tourist photos" and just make up a fake trip. Just be upfront: I didn't take a trip to Prague, but here's what it would look like it I did. Just as curated, just as personal, just as compelling as any brochure. Oh look this guy who's into craft beer and chess history wrote up a hypothetical trip to St. Petersburg, check it out. Or better, a startup idea: tell us where you're going on vacation and we'll produce your social media posts accordingly. You just enjoy your vacation and we'll get you all the likes.

torpfactory 8y ago

I am sadly very familiar with your second paragraph. Wilderness areas which were once quiet most of the year now hum with activity from even before the snow is completely melted to after the first fresh flakes of autumn arrive. These areas can be remarkably sensitive, and most lack the trail and human-waste infrastructure to handle the new crowds. These new users often lack training in leave-no-trace principles and result in blown-out trails and piles of used toilet paper behind every nearby tree. I suspect that our cash-strapped parks and forest services will impose visitor limits instead of expanding infrastructure. For those with the skills to navigate confidently off trail, there are still many quiet corners of our ranges to explore. For the rest, the future looks a lot busier.

jogjayr 8y ago
> These new users often lack training in leave-no-trace principles and result in blown-out trails and piles of used toilet paper behind every nearby tree. I suspect that our cash-strapped parks and forest services will impose visitor limits instead of expanding infrastructure. Look at the upside though. More visitors means justification for more funding. And more voters who will raise a fuss if that funding isn't provided. You can always train newbs to get better. There's a thousand entertainment choices competing for people's attention today. Most of them are easier than packing a 20lb backpack and tramping off into the woods. On balance I'd say more people venturing outdoors is better than them staying home.

ledriveby 8y ago

I can't escape the Bluetooth speakers on the slopes or the hiking trails anymore.

paulcole 8y ago
In bear country it’s just good safety.

darkerside 8y ago

For the record, this is literally gatekeeping. That's ok, just own it.

notacoward 8y ago

> places that in all noneconomic ways would be better, realer, without you Have you ever considered how the actual residents of those places feel? Even for a moment? I'm sure some of them would prefer a return to a more "authentic" condition, but I'll bet the great majority are pretty happy for the $$$ that tourism brings in (or in some cases for the public goods those $$$ buy and that they enjoy). They don't have some duty to maintain things in a pristine state, at cost to their own quality of life, so that those oh-so-precious few who have the money or time to "make the effort" can come see them without the hordes of less privileged following.

jcurbo 8y ago

"Most people I know practice some variant of a digital leave-no-trace rule: don't post photos in publicly-trafficked areas of the internet, or if you do then don't say where they were taken. It's not so much gatekeeping as ensuring people who want to experience that beauty have to put in the work - read terribly-designed websites, meet actual people and gain their trust, or even take a backcountry travel class which hopefully instills a healthy respect for the environment you're enjoying." This is sheer nonsense and IS ridiculous gatekeeping. Ensuring people who want to experience beauty need to put in work for it? Some people may never be able to visit these places, not everyone is so fortunate to be able to afford or have time off to travel. You might as well say they should never look at book of photos either, or they can never look at a painting without becoming an artist first. Maybe they would never gain a love of the outdoors if they had never seen some of these photos first and wanted to see more? Now, I agree with the sentiment that there can be tourist overload on places, and that they should be managed well so they aren't destroyed. But 'digital leave no trace' is just nonsense. We should be sharing the beauty of the world, not restricting it.

Roritharr 8y ago
I agree, the absurdity of the notion of digital gatekeeping of beauty becomes apparent if we think what the first pictures of our planet from space have done for the ecology movement. People need to experience to connect. Take that away and living in air conditioned condos and driving big diesel SUVs to the next strip mall for your latte is just how the world is supposed to be.
ahelwer 8y ago
It seems like you're assessing this in a very abstract way, as evidenced by your "what if we took this logic to the extreme" examples. I assure you your perspective changes once you have skin in the game and are invested in an activity which is substantially diminished by the introduction of a large number of uncaring people.
- eanzenberg 8y ago
  Literally the same argument was made when blacks tried to move into predominately white neighborhoods. “Oh it’s never been the same since, we had to leave to a more exclusive town.” As long as gates break down new ones will emerge. That surfing spot down thr road is now 5x busy as it was a decade ago? Doesn’t matter, those with means already moved onwards to the better exclusive spot on some remote island.

usaphp 8y ago

How is this nonsense being upvoted?

noelsusman 8y ago

That quote is pretentious nonsense, and you can claim it's not gatekeeping all you want, but you're describing gatekeeping.

natso100 8y ago

I completely agree with your comment about democratizing of our outdoors with mediums like Instagram. They provide a phenomenal view into the beauty of our planet, but open that beauty to a lot of bad actors, or, at least, ignorant actors. Fortunately, there are a few 'grammers who adhere to digital leave no trace and always leave a blurb about the real 'leave no trace' within each post. I would love that to be the norm. From a personal level, I came to the same logical conclusion as you - push ever deeper into nature via mountaineering, bc skiing, etc. At the end of the day though am I not just a hypocritical ass? I can explore further into nature due to gps, maps, synthetic materials, lightweight AT ski gear, etc. Are not the 'original' explorers just looking at me like I look at the wave of new 'for the gram' hikers?

ahelwer 8y ago
Of course the original explorers feel that way! Heck, I sport climb, which at one point was nearly grounds for a beating in some circles. I think people worry too much about hypocrisy. Arguments of the form "you believe X, but if we take X to its logical extreme then you yourself run afoul of X!" lost all weight with me a long time ago. Sure, in the long run all attempts to avoid the crowd fails, and of course you yourself are part of "the crowd" to some people. But human life doesn't take place in the long run, it happens in the time preceding it. I can enjoy my favorite backcountry spots (which I learned about from someone else, and so on) for some number of years before they are overrun with crowds, but the inevitability of them being run over by crowds does not take away those years.

tluyben2 8y ago

I notice that for 99% of the places we go, if we just hike 10 minutes from the ‘touristic entrypoint’, places are deserted unless you can get there by car. Even in extremely densely packed places like Hong Kong or tourist places where in the weekend many people go walking; if you just go a bit further, there is no one for hours. You do not need to go mountaineering for that. A lot of people like nature but abhor walking, so in places like in Spain where I go often you see hundreds of tourists on the picnic place deep in the forest on the mountain you can drive to, but, again, 10 minutes walk on a solid nice path which is forbidden for cars, you will find no people at all. Even or maybe especially in high season (walking in heat seems even worse for people; I love it).