> And decrying "mass tourism," as Russell puts it, is nothing but code for "Only a few wealthy people should get to experience this." "Nothing but" is an incor

> And decrying "mass tourism," as Russell puts it, is nothing but code for "Only a few wealthy people should get to experience this." "Nothing but" is an incorrect over-reduction. Like any high-volume human activity, mass tourism can have real impacts. Concern over those impacts is likely to exist entirely independently of wealth-favoring classism. And whether the experience is limited only to the wealthy depends what mechanism is chosen to limit access. If it's determined by pricing mechanisms responding to demand, then, yep, you're going to largely skew access to the wealthy. If it's determined by assessing the number of visitors that won't destroy the experience, and then handing out access via lottery then the criticism loses some of its power.