3 ms·

How one Mexican beach town saved itself from 'death by tourism'

xandrius 3y ago
Tl;dr: they actually didn't save themselves, a group managed to stop a project from going forward, for now. Tourism, issues related with it and struggles are still there. This is a problem that can easily be solved by the (local) government, or by the local community which needs to put an exorbitant amount of effort for some temporary (and unsure) victories.
renewiltord 3y ago
Ultimately, the reason so many hated Trump was that he said what they believed in their hearts but without using the words they liked. He wanted to “build a wall to keep immigrants out” and they wanted to “add regulation to protect locals and prevent unsustainable immigration”. The desire for constancy is inherent in man. We can use Germanic words and be direct or Latin words and speak of fictitious lofty ideals. But that’s what we want. To hold what is ours and to take what is others. And now that force is unpalatable we apply politics. Seeming hypocrisy resolves itself when we see that what was once a tribal conquest is now a political victory. Marc Andreessen is the closest to this crowd for that form in its finest.
- convolvatron 3y ago
  in Marquez's Autumn of the Patriarch,he repeatedly mentions that the sea had been sold to the Americans. and in the background, we can see how much poorer everyone there is for it. before, they had easy wealth, and now just squabbling over dirt. maybe people should have the right to not choose not to sell their homes
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    They do. And Trump will build the wall for them. The desire to exclude the other is deep and heartfelt and it is insufficient to many to not sell their homes; they must make sure others can’t sell theirs either. That insular parochialism is often necessary to retain one’s wealth: faced with overwhelming economy force, rent-seeking requires overwhelming political force. So it goes in coastal California and so it goes everywhere around the world. The Average American strides the rest of the world like a colossus while petty men walk in his wake and peep about. Faced with that, what choice do you have but to constrain your neighbour? If he slackens and sells, enriching himself in the process, the Average American arrives: powerful and destructive. Force Majeure.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Despite the eloquent speech, the world hasn't been like that. The free world has gained incredible wealth over generations; the xenophobic, hateful dictatorhips are moribund. Trump's hyper-reactionary politics are very different from most of the centuries of American history, and much European history too. Where was all this in 2015?
      - renewiltord 3y ago
        In Californian covenants to keep the other man out. In houses with “in this house we believe” on the lawn outside. American English uses the term carpetbagger or transplant to disparage domestic immigration. The present acceptable language is that of protecting victims so that’s the language we use. But we’ve always wanted to do this. And this is the wealthiest nation man has seen. Britain screamed bloody murder for eons till they were able to exclude Europeans. The Germans held the gastarbeiter second class. A cell, the basic form of life, crucially has a border: a within and a without. All forms of life are self-similar in this aspect: defining inside and outside and walling the boundary. Humans of the past prized additionally their strength so the restriction was overt. Humans of today prize freedom from guilt so we construct ourselves as the victim. But the rule is simple: when you circle the wagons - there is an inside and there is an outside. And you don’t let the other guy get in and you don’t go out.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        There are also many examples of the opposite - many more, in fact. Why is it important to you to ignore all that in order to believe in such unhappy things?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  The attempt to claim inevitability or some supreme access truth is an old way to avoid addressing merits, usually because the argument doesn't have many merits. People have many drives in them, good and bad, violent and peaceful, altruistic and selfish. We are not biologically different than Gandhi or Hitler, than Trump or Biden, than our saintly and truly demonic ancestors. You have all those people in you, all those drives. You have a choice: As ancient texts and very many since will tell you, we have a choice; we have the free will to follow one drive or another. When people are very afraid, they are more likely to both do desperate things and to not think about them (physiologically being in a traumatic state, without their frontal cortex working well). That's one reason some leaders try to terrify their followers - by making them think things are terrifying and desperate, they can manipulate their followers into choosing evil things. A great signal of a bad leader is someone who creates and inflames fear (which also goes back to ancient scriptures [0]). In contrast, even in the most desperate situations, think of how Washington and Jefferson responded, think of Lincoln, of Churchill and FDR, of MLK and Mandela, of Eisenhower - 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself'. Not even a lieutenant or sergeant of any respect engenders fear in their followers; they are calm under fire. We lack a prominant leader like that today; many abdicate good leadership and responsibility to society as if the abdication is a fashionable outfit that they simply must have for the party. I'm confident that when such a leader steps forward, people will follow in droves (and they will be much targeted by the evil leaders who will see the true threat to them). The evidence of other drives is overwhelming: Peace, love for our neighbors, tourism, universal human rights - embraced in cultures all over the world and in the foundation of the United States (and France and many others). it happens every day everywhere. It happens for me in my city every day, with complete strangers. It's a choice. It's my choice and yours. [0] Matthew 7:15: ""Beware of false prophets .... Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    Name your city and I will find the rule your people have chosen to enforce “look but don’t touch” and “come but do not remain”. I’m sure you’ll have some justification for it. “Oh that’s just to protect historically significant this and that” and “that’s just to ensure locals don’t get priced out”. Modern sensibilities are to conceal this nature and state them as if they are protective of the vulnerable. This very article does that. Your people will do the same and you will find it acceptable. After all, you do give tourists directions.
Slava_Propanei 3y ago
[dead]
wolverine876 3y ago
A few places have worked to reduce tourism, or at least I've seen a few stories about it. Part of it, I imagine, is the attack on social trust. More often than before, it seems that instead of seeing other people as an opportunity and as a pleasure (and we are social beings, going all the way back to our primate ancestors), they are seen as threats. And as people seem to have forgotten human rights, that we are all equal, they seem to indulge in outlawing those they don't like (what could go wrong?) - unhoused people, addicted people, people who look different, people who believe differently, etc. I'm interested in the economics of it: Other people are not only a social opportunity but indeed an economic one. In one major European city, it was claimed that overnight bar-hoppers didn't provide much economic benefit, but I wonder how true that was, including for hotel/motel and bar owners.

Tl;dr: they actually didn't save themselves, a group managed to stop a project from going forward, for now. Tourism, issues related with it and struggles are still there. This is a problem that can easily be solved by the (local) government, or by the local community which needs to put an exorbitant amount of effort for some temporary (and unsure) victories.

renewiltord 3y ago

Ultimately, the reason so many hated Trump was that he said what they believed in their hearts but without using the words they liked. He wanted to “build a wall to keep immigrants out” and they wanted to “add regulation to protect locals and prevent unsustainable immigration”. The desire for constancy is inherent in man. We can use Germanic words and be direct or Latin words and speak of fictitious lofty ideals. But that’s what we want. To hold what is ours and to take what is others. And now that force is unpalatable we apply politics. Seeming hypocrisy resolves itself when we see that what was once a tribal conquest is now a political victory. Marc Andreessen is the closest to this crowd for that form in its finest.

convolvatron 3y ago
in Marquez's Autumn of the Patriarch,he repeatedly mentions that the sea had been sold to the Americans. and in the background, we can see how much poorer everyone there is for it. before, they had easy wealth, and now just squabbling over dirt. maybe people should have the right to not choose not to sell their homes
- renewiltord 3y ago
  They do. And Trump will build the wall for them. The desire to exclude the other is deep and heartfelt and it is insufficient to many to not sell their homes; they must make sure others can’t sell theirs either. That insular parochialism is often necessary to retain one’s wealth: faced with overwhelming economy force, rent-seeking requires overwhelming political force. So it goes in coastal California and so it goes everywhere around the world. The Average American strides the rest of the world like a colossus while petty men walk in his wake and peep about. Faced with that, what choice do you have but to constrain your neighbour? If he slackens and sells, enriching himself in the process, the Average American arrives: powerful and destructive. Force Majeure.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Despite the eloquent speech, the world hasn't been like that. The free world has gained incredible wealth over generations; the xenophobic, hateful dictatorhips are moribund. Trump's hyper-reactionary politics are very different from most of the centuries of American history, and much European history too. Where was all this in 2015?
    - renewiltord 3y ago
      In Californian covenants to keep the other man out. In houses with “in this house we believe” on the lawn outside. American English uses the term carpetbagger or transplant to disparage domestic immigration. The present acceptable language is that of protecting victims so that’s the language we use. But we’ve always wanted to do this. And this is the wealthiest nation man has seen. Britain screamed bloody murder for eons till they were able to exclude Europeans. The Germans held the gastarbeiter second class. A cell, the basic form of life, crucially has a border: a within and a without. All forms of life are self-similar in this aspect: defining inside and outside and walling the boundary. Humans of the past prized additionally their strength so the restriction was overt. Humans of today prize freedom from guilt so we construct ourselves as the victim. But the rule is simple: when you circle the wagons - there is an inside and there is an outside. And you don’t let the other guy get in and you don’t go out.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        There are also many examples of the opposite - many more, in fact. Why is it important to you to ignore all that in order to believe in such unhappy things?
wolverine876 3y ago
The attempt to claim inevitability or some supreme access truth is an old way to avoid addressing merits, usually because the argument doesn't have many merits. People have many drives in them, good and bad, violent and peaceful, altruistic and selfish. We are not biologically different than Gandhi or Hitler, than Trump or Biden, than our saintly and truly demonic ancestors. You have all those people in you, all those drives. You have a choice: As ancient texts and very many since will tell you, we have a choice; we have the free will to follow one drive or another. When people are very afraid, they are more likely to both do desperate things and to not think about them (physiologically being in a traumatic state, without their frontal cortex working well). That's one reason some leaders try to terrify their followers - by making them think things are terrifying and desperate, they can manipulate their followers into choosing evil things. A great signal of a bad leader is someone who creates and inflames fear (which also goes back to ancient scriptures [0]). In contrast, even in the most desperate situations, think of how Washington and Jefferson responded, think of Lincoln, of Churchill and FDR, of MLK and Mandela, of Eisenhower - 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself'. Not even a lieutenant or sergeant of any respect engenders fear in their followers; they are calm under fire. We lack a prominant leader like that today; many abdicate good leadership and responsibility to society as if the abdication is a fashionable outfit that they simply must have for the party. I'm confident that when such a leader steps forward, people will follow in droves (and they will be much targeted by the evil leaders who will see the true threat to them). The evidence of other drives is overwhelming: Peace, love for our neighbors, tourism, universal human rights - embraced in cultures all over the world and in the foundation of the United States (and France and many others). it happens every day everywhere. It happens for me in my city every day, with complete strangers. It's a choice. It's my choice and yours. [0] Matthew 7:15: ""Beware of false prophets .... Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Name your city and I will find the rule your people have chosen to enforce “look but don’t touch” and “come but do not remain”. I’m sure you’ll have some justification for it. “Oh that’s just to protect historically significant this and that” and “that’s just to ensure locals don’t get priced out”. Modern sensibilities are to conceal this nature and state them as if they are protective of the vulnerable. This very article does that. Your people will do the same and you will find it acceptable. After all, you do give tourists directions.

Slava_Propanei 3y ago

[dead]

wolverine876 3y ago

A few places have worked to reduce tourism, or at least I've seen a few stories about it. Part of it, I imagine, is the attack on social trust. More often than before, it seems that instead of seeing other people as an opportunity and as a pleasure (and we are social beings, going all the way back to our primate ancestors), they are seen as threats. And as people seem to have forgotten human rights, that we are all equal, they seem to indulge in outlawing those they don't like (what could go wrong?) - unhoused people, addicted people, people who look different, people who believe differently, etc. I'm interested in the economics of it: Other people are not only a social opportunity but indeed an economic one. In one major European city, it was claimed that overnight bar-hoppers didn't provide much economic benefit, but I wonder how true that was, including for hotel/motel and bar owners.