7 ms·

God forbid we have more people entering the middle class, who want to explore the world. I hate how preachy publications like Vox and The Atlantic can be. The

God forbid we have more people entering the middle class, who want to explore the world. I hate how preachy publications like Vox and The Atlantic can be. The writers come from these urbanized, upper middle class backgrounds and have no self-awareness. When I (with my small-town highschool dropout roots) read stories like this, I can't help but reword what they're saying in my head: "Go back to being working-class scum who stays in the same place so us upper-class people can enjoy jet-setting and taking photos in exotic locations only you can dream of."

sametmax 7y ago
That's not the problem. They have the right to. We encourage it. But there are too many humans. This is just a hisper example, but pollution, food quality, democraty, education and the health system suffer from the same problem. It's going to get worse and all we do is finding temporary solutions, not adressing the elephant in the room: promoting growth forever is not sustainable. I really lile this conf: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D&playnext=1&v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=list_other https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D&playnext... Because it addresses the problem mathematically, and answers the usual rebukes about innovation, moderation and other "sustainable growth".
- newswriter99 7y ago
  That's my point. From my perspective, the headline isn't: "There are too many humans" Instead it's: "It was better when only us privileged humans got to do this thing"
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    There is nothing wrong with that inconvenient truth. Finite systems don’t care about political correctness. Perhaps a better headline would’ve been, “Not everyone can join the middle class”.
    - sametmax 7y ago
      That would make it subject to outcry because it could be understood as "you are not allowed", while the problem is that "there are too many of us for this lifestyle"
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >There is nothing wrong with that inconvenient truth. Finite systems don’t care about political correctness. Some care is needed though, because neither the poor butchering the rich classes with machetes during a revolt care about political correctness either... >Perhaps a better headline would’ve been, “Not everyone can join the middle class”. How about, "less tourism, whether upper or middle class"? I'd like to see wannabe tourists earn the right to travel, as opposed to it being the default or just what money buy you. Maybe a cultural exam based on the destination? Make people work for it. Of course that's not in the interest of huge tourism industries, domestic or abroad. People that travel just to drink cheep beer or expensive champagne in another country, could always just stay at home and drink there.
      - sametmax 7y ago
        > How about, "less tourism, whether upper or middle class"? That won't work on the long run. Watch the video, it is addressed.
- melling 7y ago
  I’m sure we can handle more people on this planet if we don’t all eat meat daily, we don’t need to drive cars, and don’t get on airplanes to travel 200-500 miles. How much wasted space do we have in cities because we build around cars? https://www.fastcompany.com/90202222/heres-how-much-space-u-s-cities-waste-on-parking https://www.fastcompany.com/90202222/heres-how-much-space-u-...
  - sametmax 7y ago
    Watch the video. This is addressed as well. There are many variables to this: the time we get to react, the effect on democracy, the innovation fallacy, our perspective on resources availability, etc.
- throwaway50003 7y ago
  We are a reaaally far cry from exhausting all our resources. Overpopulation is a concern but all trends point at a curb of growth in the 2050's. The problem isn't that we collectively consume too much, it's that some consume waaaaay too much and others fight for crumbs and get told off when they dare yearn for more. Guilt-tripping middle-class and poor people into accepting lower standards of living is dangerous imo, because silly contributions you may make are dwarfed by corporate contributions. Studies show that people who do token actions such as eating less meat are less likely to take part in actions that matter e.g. dismantling Exxon and putting its top execs behind bars).
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    Forecast is a 60% increase of the world population by the end of the century... The future of climate change and the environment is hopeless because of that as we already don't do anything now. I don't know who's childishly downvoting any comment that points this out. I can only suggest that they wake up and smell the coffee.
  - sametmax 7y ago
    This is addressed in the video I linked as well. Watch it, your point is logical but doesn't take in consideration several variables.
freddie_mercury 7y ago
Can you quote some passages that you felt were preachy? I read your comment and then read the article expecting to find the worst. But it seemed pretty even handed and didn't at all suggest people go back to being working class scum. But maybe that's just my own biased reading. If you could point out the passages you find problematic it would help me improve my empathy.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Can you quote some passages that you felt were preachy? I read your comment and then read the article expecting to find the worst. But it seemed pretty even handed and didn't at all suggest people go back to being working class scum. If you are working class, such things are more felt and nuanced at, than explicitly said (at least not in polite upper class company). Not that dissimilar with racism. (Except of course if you're very poor -- then everybody has the free pass to call you "white trash" and mock you, in a way that they wouldn't dare mock any other group).
  - newswriter99 7y ago
    It's in the writing. Look at the headline: "Too many people want to travel" Funny how she didn't give a damn when it was just her group getting to travel. Now that there's the rest of us getting to do it? Oh, that's too many, go back to not traveling you people.
    - freddie_mercury 7y ago
      The headline is chosen by the editor, not the author. How do you know what the author used to think? Can you link to her previous writing establishing that?
      - newswriter99 7y ago
        Not all the time. Source: reporter
  - linuxftw 7y ago
georgehayduke 7y ago
Did you read the entire article? The final paragraphs seem to suggest that on balance, the author believes that the benefits of travel by the wider population outweigh the risks of over-tourism: "These phenomena inevitably mean more complaints from locals, and more damage and lines and selfies and bad behavior. But they also mean more cross-cultural exposure, more investment, more global connection, more democratization of travel, and perhaps more awe and wonder. Even overtourism has its upsides."
- magduf 7y ago
  Then maybe they shouldn't have picked such a click-baity title.
- patrick5415 7y ago
  Personally, I got about a third of the way through and clicked out because I felt the same disgust as the op. At least to the point in the article I got to, the author didn’t cite any real data, just cherry picked anecdotes to support their pearl clutching. I mean, why are boats with an all you can eat buffet a problem anyway? Right, because the author wants the buffet scarfing philistines to stay in flyover country where they belong.
linuxftw 7y ago
> "Go back to being working-class scum who stays in the same place so us upper-class people can enjoy jet-setting and taking photos in exotic locations only you can dream of." Pretty much. It's weird how journalists have the presumption that we should care about literally anything they say. Opine me, dearly appointed ones.
Mr_Shiba 7y ago
Actually I think you are reading way to much into it, seems to me she is neither condemning nor praising, the article conclusion does mention there is an upside to this raise in travel: "they also mean more cross-cultural exposure, more investment, more global connection, more democratization of travel, and perhaps more awe and wonder. Even overtourism has its upsides."
Balgair 7y ago
> I hate how preachy publications like Vox and The Atlantic can be. They have been this way for decades, it's kinda their thing. Just look at the monatage scene in the orginal 1984 Ghostbusters, they roast The Atlantic pretty well 35 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs#t=1m55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs#t=1m55s EDIT: The OP I am replying to has changed their posting quite a bit. Hence my comment does not make much sense anymore.
- scelerat 7y ago
  I had forgotten that little tidbit. It's a funny jab, but at the same time a completely believable Atlantic headline, and I'd totally be interested in reading an article on the civil rights of ghosts.
  - Balgair 7y ago
    SNL alumni of that era were pretty sharp
sodafountan 7y ago
Yeah no, not at all. It's a real problem when Mt Everest is so overcrowded that people are dying. The problem the author points out is that as the population and middle class grows it inevitably leads to more travel, but many of the wonders of the world don't have the infrastructure to support the massive influx of people. The truly wealthy have the means to avoid the crowds, they can fly private, stay in exclusive resorts, rent private yachts. This is a very modern and new problem of overpopulation meeting an increasing amount of free time and wealth.
wavefunction 7y ago
I have to admit that I've wrestled with frustration at what I perceive to be people traveling to "tick off the boxes" whether that is going to Machu Pichu or some Instagram famous spot just to get a selfie of themself "experiencing" the place and then immediately leave without perhaps "experiencing" the place as I understand "experiencing" to truly consist of.

sametmax 7y ago

That's not the problem. They have the right to. We encourage it. But there are too many humans. This is just a hisper example, but pollution, food quality, democraty, education and the health system suffer from the same problem. It's going to get worse and all we do is finding temporary solutions, not adressing the elephant in the room: promoting growth forever is not sustainable. I really lile this conf: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D&playnext=1&v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=list_other https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D&playnext... Because it addresses the problem mathematically, and answers the usual rebukes about innovation, moderation and other "sustainable growth".

newswriter99 7y ago
That's my point. From my perspective, the headline isn't: "There are too many humans" Instead it's: "It was better when only us privileged humans got to do this thing"
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  There is nothing wrong with that inconvenient truth. Finite systems don’t care about political correctness. Perhaps a better headline would’ve been, “Not everyone can join the middle class”.
  - sametmax 7y ago
    That would make it subject to outcry because it could be understood as "you are not allowed", while the problem is that "there are too many of us for this lifestyle"
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >There is nothing wrong with that inconvenient truth. Finite systems don’t care about political correctness. Some care is needed though, because neither the poor butchering the rich classes with machetes during a revolt care about political correctness either... >Perhaps a better headline would’ve been, “Not everyone can join the middle class”. How about, "less tourism, whether upper or middle class"? I'd like to see wannabe tourists earn the right to travel, as opposed to it being the default or just what money buy you. Maybe a cultural exam based on the destination? Make people work for it. Of course that's not in the interest of huge tourism industries, domestic or abroad. People that travel just to drink cheep beer or expensive champagne in another country, could always just stay at home and drink there.
    - sametmax 7y ago
      > How about, "less tourism, whether upper or middle class"? That won't work on the long run. Watch the video, it is addressed.
melling 7y ago
I’m sure we can handle more people on this planet if we don’t all eat meat daily, we don’t need to drive cars, and don’t get on airplanes to travel 200-500 miles. How much wasted space do we have in cities because we build around cars? https://www.fastcompany.com/90202222/heres-how-much-space-u-s-cities-waste-on-parking https://www.fastcompany.com/90202222/heres-how-much-space-u-...
- sametmax 7y ago
  Watch the video. This is addressed as well. There are many variables to this: the time we get to react, the effect on democracy, the innovation fallacy, our perspective on resources availability, etc.
throwaway50003 7y ago
We are a reaaally far cry from exhausting all our resources. Overpopulation is a concern but all trends point at a curb of growth in the 2050's. The problem isn't that we collectively consume too much, it's that some consume waaaaay too much and others fight for crumbs and get told off when they dare yearn for more. Guilt-tripping middle-class and poor people into accepting lower standards of living is dangerous imo, because silly contributions you may make are dwarfed by corporate contributions. Studies show that people who do token actions such as eating less meat are less likely to take part in actions that matter e.g. dismantling Exxon and putting its top execs behind bars).
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  Forecast is a 60% increase of the world population by the end of the century... The future of climate change and the environment is hopeless because of that as we already don't do anything now. I don't know who's childishly downvoting any comment that points this out. I can only suggest that they wake up and smell the coffee.
- sametmax 7y ago
  This is addressed in the video I linked as well. Watch it, your point is logical but doesn't take in consideration several variables.

freddie_mercury 7y ago

Can you quote some passages that you felt were preachy? I read your comment and then read the article expecting to find the worst. But it seemed pretty even handed and didn't at all suggest people go back to being working class scum. But maybe that's just my own biased reading. If you could point out the passages you find problematic it would help me improve my empathy.

coldtea 7y ago
>Can you quote some passages that you felt were preachy? I read your comment and then read the article expecting to find the worst. But it seemed pretty even handed and didn't at all suggest people go back to being working class scum. If you are working class, such things are more felt and nuanced at, than explicitly said (at least not in polite upper class company). Not that dissimilar with racism. (Except of course if you're very poor -- then everybody has the free pass to call you "white trash" and mock you, in a way that they wouldn't dare mock any other group).
- newswriter99 7y ago
  It's in the writing. Look at the headline: "Too many people want to travel" Funny how she didn't give a damn when it was just her group getting to travel. Now that there's the rest of us getting to do it? Oh, that's too many, go back to not traveling you people.
  - freddie_mercury 7y ago
    The headline is chosen by the editor, not the author. How do you know what the author used to think? Can you link to her previous writing establishing that?
    - newswriter99 7y ago
      Not all the time. Source: reporter
- linuxftw 7y ago

georgehayduke 7y ago

Did you read the entire article? The final paragraphs seem to suggest that on balance, the author believes that the benefits of travel by the wider population outweigh the risks of over-tourism: "These phenomena inevitably mean more complaints from locals, and more damage and lines and selfies and bad behavior. But they also mean more cross-cultural exposure, more investment, more global connection, more democratization of travel, and perhaps more awe and wonder. Even overtourism has its upsides."

magduf 7y ago
Then maybe they shouldn't have picked such a click-baity title.
patrick5415 7y ago
Personally, I got about a third of the way through and clicked out because I felt the same disgust as the op. At least to the point in the article I got to, the author didn’t cite any real data, just cherry picked anecdotes to support their pearl clutching. I mean, why are boats with an all you can eat buffet a problem anyway? Right, because the author wants the buffet scarfing philistines to stay in flyover country where they belong.

linuxftw 7y ago

> "Go back to being working-class scum who stays in the same place so us upper-class people can enjoy jet-setting and taking photos in exotic locations only you can dream of." Pretty much. It's weird how journalists have the presumption that we should care about literally anything they say. Opine me, dearly appointed ones.

Mr_Shiba 7y ago

Actually I think you are reading way to much into it, seems to me she is neither condemning nor praising, the article conclusion does mention there is an upside to this raise in travel: "they also mean more cross-cultural exposure, more investment, more global connection, more democratization of travel, and perhaps more awe and wonder. Even overtourism has its upsides."

Balgair 7y ago

> I hate how preachy publications like Vox and The Atlantic can be. They have been this way for decades, it's kinda their thing. Just look at the monatage scene in the orginal 1984 Ghostbusters, they roast The Atlantic pretty well 35 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs#t=1m55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs#t=1m55s EDIT: The OP I am replying to has changed their posting quite a bit. Hence my comment does not make much sense anymore.

scelerat 7y ago
I had forgotten that little tidbit. It's a funny jab, but at the same time a completely believable Atlantic headline, and I'd totally be interested in reading an article on the civil rights of ghosts.
- Balgair 7y ago
  SNL alumni of that era were pretty sharp

sodafountan 7y ago

Yeah no, not at all. It's a real problem when Mt Everest is so overcrowded that people are dying. The problem the author points out is that as the population and middle class grows it inevitably leads to more travel, but many of the wonders of the world don't have the infrastructure to support the massive influx of people. The truly wealthy have the means to avoid the crowds, they can fly private, stay in exclusive resorts, rent private yachts. This is a very modern and new problem of overpopulation meeting an increasing amount of free time and wealth.

wavefunction 7y ago

I have to admit that I've wrestled with frustration at what I perceive to be people traveling to "tick off the boxes" whether that is going to Machu Pichu or some Instagram famous spot just to get a selfie of themself "experiencing" the place and then immediately leave without perhaps "experiencing" the place as I understand "experiencing" to truly consist of.