2 ms·

I think this is just wrong and some kind of modern malthusianism. IMO the logical outcome would be that the most trendy destinations will get more expensive, t

by mijamo 8y ago

I think this is just wrong and some kind of modern malthusianism. IMO the logical outcome would be that the most trendy destinations will get more expensive, thus overpricing many tourists and regulating itself, and that it will open a new opportunity for many places which are not today super touristic. SO everybody will be a tourist, just not at the same place. It is already happening actually, you have much more touristic places than it used to be and the potential is huge. I mean just look how many tourists you can fit in France or Italy and imagine if Asia and Africa scale tourism in the same way. Many costs are under/mis-used. The brazilian cost could be much more used than it is right now. This has also already happened before. When Spain got more expensive, tourism grew in Tunisia and Turkey, and there is still a lot of potential there. Eastern Europe also still has a lot of underused potential. New touristic places just appear naturally when you have a market. Not everybody goes to Tahiti, but there is potential for some destination for everybody.

nine_k 8y ago
Raising the price = limiting to the privileged (moneyed) few. Running a lottery = limiting to the privileged (lucky) few. Creating a reserve / national park / protected area = limiting access to the privileged (science-related, or just well-connected) few. There's no way that everyone who would not mind to visit a carnival in Venice could fit the city, if getting there was free and instant. This is a fact of life, and I personally am fine with it. People have different priorities, so let them (us) choose what group of limited few we can concentrate on entering. For what I cannot afford to access, VR helmets exist.
908087 8y ago
> The brazilian cost could be much more used than it is right now. If by used you mean "used up and robbed of any natural beauty to accomodate 'selfie experiences'", I agree.
moate 8y ago
It's not wrong, and you've reinforced his point. It's not about "going on a vacation" it's specifically "going on a vacation to <place X>". Something will always be a limiting factor for why you can't have everyone go to a singular place. Are there other perfectly nice places that you, guy who is in some way limited in your ability/means, could go to instead of the moon? Of course there are. But the moon is off limits to you because you don't have the money to charter the mission there, or the authorization of your government.

by mijamo 8y ago

nine_k 8y ago

Raising the price = limiting to the privileged (moneyed) few. Running a lottery = limiting to the privileged (lucky) few. Creating a reserve / national park / protected area = limiting access to the privileged (science-related, or just well-connected) few. There's no way that everyone who would not mind to visit a carnival in Venice could fit the city, if getting there was free and instant. This is a fact of life, and I personally am fine with it. People have different priorities, so let them (us) choose what group of limited few we can concentrate on entering. For what I cannot afford to access, VR helmets exist.

908087 8y ago

> The brazilian cost could be much more used than it is right now. If by used you mean "used up and robbed of any natural beauty to accomodate 'selfie experiences'", I agree.

moate 8y ago

It's not wrong, and you've reinforced his point. It's not about "going on a vacation" it's specifically "going on a vacation to <place X>". Something will always be a limiting factor for why you can't have everyone go to a singular place. Are there other perfectly nice places that you, guy who is in some way limited in your ability/means, could go to instead of the moon? Of course there are. But the moon is off limits to you because you don't have the money to charter the mission there, or the authorization of your government.