4 ms·
I've read that when visiting the Vatican, you can pay extra to be allowed to walk through before regular admission starts. Which seems totally worth the cost, b
by YellOh 3y ago
I've read that when visiting the Vatican, you can pay extra to be allowed to walk through before regular admission starts. Which seems totally worth the cost, but a) keeps it out of reach of most people, and b) kicks the can down the street until there are enough people willing to pay the higher cost.
But overall the system seems like the best we can get... one portion of the day with limited admission (maybe a cap at a very small number of visitors), auctioned so that those who are willing to pay the most get in. Then that money is used for upkeep & supporting general admission, where anyone can pay a low price to come in with ~no cap.
I die a little inside to discuss limiting a full experience of some of the world's best-known works of art to the wealthy, but I genuinely don't know of a better way to allocate a scarce good.
- xwdv 3y agoPeople aren’t entitled to experiences. Back in the day, most people barely left their own towns. You might be lucky if you saw one great work of art in your lifetime. That’s what we must return to in order to keep places from getting over saturated with tourism.
- harimau777 3y agoIf people don't get to have experiences, then why should they care whether or not places get over saturated with tourism?
- xwdv 3y agoBecause the world doesn’t revolve around them. Just because you will never get to see the Sistine Chapel doesn’t mean you should be fine with it being burnt down.
- hackernewds 3y agoPerhaps that could be your philosophy of the world. But indeed, me along with millions do want to broaden our understanding and experience of the world. Else why even use phones and the internet to post here, unlike "back in the days of yonder".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- harimau777 3y agoCan you explain your reasoning? If people won't get any benefit from the Sistine Chapel (or comparable locations), then why should they care if they exist?
- macintux 3y agoFrom a purely pragmatic/selfish perspective, the more wondrous places that exist the greater the opportunity for me to see one, both from a "hey that's close to where I'll be" standpoint and "hey, the more tourists at the Sistine Chapel, the fewer at the Louvre". But from a broader perspective, beauty in the world is worth cherishing. I regret the gradual destruction of both the coral reefs and Venice. I was saddened when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan, despite never expecting to see them, despite not even knowing they existed previously.
- harimau777 3y agoTo me that seems a lot different than the scenario that the parent poster is presenting where the majority of people stay in their small town and never experience any of these things. I can definitely get on board for the idea that humanity needs to work together to manage our cultural resources so that everyone can benefit. I can't get on board with the idea that the majority of people should live empty lives in order to preserve things for a lucky few.
- xwdv 3y agoWhether we like it or not, tourist attractions do not scale. Everyone isn’t going to get their 15 minutes with the Sistine chapel. Some won’t even get more than a few minutes if at all.
- harimau777 3y agoI get what you are saying, but you aren't explaining what your solution is. It sounds like you are advocating returning to a model where the peasants toil away in obscurity to that the aristocracy can enjoy art, travel, etc. However, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that's not actually what you are advocating.
- 4nowKate 3y ago[dead]
- dmm 3y ago> I genuinely don't know of a better way to allocate a scarce good. We need another Michelangelo.
- cyberax 3y agoI'd love a stroke-for-stroke reproduction, with spectrally-matched pigments.
- interroboink 3y ago> but I genuinely don't know of a better way to allocate a scarce good. A lottery system is an alternative. Still need to generate enough money to cover costs, but could be done as a partial thing. For instance, some national park areas in the US have lotteries to be allowed to camp in them. The fee is low, so it's not biased towards rich people. A bit like how Billy Joel got tired of bored rich people in the front row seats, so he reserved them to be given to random real fans.
- bombcar 3y agoYou have to put some limits in to prevent selling the lotteries, as if you’re going to have money change hands it might as well go to the source.
- HWR_14 3y agoYou could check ids and make the tickets non-transferable. Like at some concerts.
- hackernewds 3y agoThe lotteries for the national parks are abused by automated bots reserving in microseconds - at least in the PNW. Heck, I've even stumbled upon a secondary marketplace reselling them for thousands since they are transferable (fatal flaw). So the argument about equal access is moot. I'm sure there's a reader here that is aware.
- afavour 3y agoYou could always make them… not transferable. There will always be some people that find a way to slip through but it is possible to make it a significant difficulty to do so. It’s just that most places don’t care to.
- labster 3y agoHave you considered setting up a laser link to your local park so you can reserve a campsite? If you can’t beat the HFTs, join ‘em!
- r0fl 3y agohttps://thevaticanmuseums.com/vatican-tours/vip-early-entrance-vatican-guided-tour/ https://thevaticanmuseums.com/vatican-tours/vip-early-entran... Almost everywhere in the world you can pay extra to get into places earlier than the general public. Just depends on how much money you are willing to spend
- User23 3y agoLottery is the only alternative that comes to mind.