> "pukers" That's really funny. On the one hand, I feel a satisfying connectedness when I visit a real-life place mentioned in a book: I traveled the Spanish

> "pukers" That's really funny. On the one hand, I feel a satisfying connectedness when I visit a real-life place mentioned in a book: I traveled the Spanish countryside after reading "The Sun Also Rises", and got lost in the countryside and drank red wine on the hills. I also visited the killing fields in Cambodia after reading "The Killing Fields" and "Swimming to Cambodia". It was fucking terrifying that this happened in my lifetime. On the other hand, I can see how stressful this is for locals, like both in Alaska and Spain who aren't asking for the influx. But at least in Cambodia, it is an important historical legacy and it brings revenue. I've come to the conclusion for myself that I don't want to bother the locals just for my own satisfaction unless the target destination has been built with concern and sensitivity, and not for exploitation. Even the latter case is still subjective: are the streets of Paris' tourist-traps exploitative and annoying? What about the shops around Giza's pyramids? Both locations seemed to be unhappy about the tourism. I spoke with a shop owner in Panama and he said the locals love/hate tourists: the dollars are important, but the psychological impact of having their homes be fishbowls is not insignificant.