Backpacking through the poorest parts of the world is a very different experience than drinking margaritas on a beach. "Travel" is so vague.

I recently spent a year living abroad, and while I'd agree that it transformed the way I think about myself, it did so in a way that made me critical about most forms of tourism.

Hopping from place to place and seeing tourist sites can be fun and relaxing, but it's ultimately also pretty meaningless. This was drawn in sharp contrast for me because I was living in a famous tourist area (Kyoto), and I routinely saw the vast differences between the way tourists experience the area, and the way locals do. There's a very established tourist route, and it has almost no overlap (other than commercial) with the authentic life of the city. Tourists arrive, see the station, visit a few of the "mass-market" temples and shrines, then they leave. Even the folks who have "authentic experiences" are more-or-less following well-trodden pathways.

It's hard, because I now find it difficult to travel to places where I don't have a deeper purpose for being there. Simply seeing something pretty is no longer enough. But I also recognize that this is, almost by definition, impossible for everyone to do. I like travel too, but I'm quite conflicted now.

Most forms of mass-market tourism are essentially no different from Disney World, but with worse environmental impact. They're cancerous, and unless tightly regulated, will destroy the very places they promote. At least Disney World was built in a swamp!

I tend to think of "shallow" tourism the same way I think of watching movies. Of course I know it's all an artificial experience, but I'll still turn off my brain and watch cheesy action flicks or snap photos w/ Goofy at Disneyland all the same. If anything, having had the opportunity to live the difference between locals and tourists (I've been both for San Francisco), I adjust my expectations for how much cultural enrichment I'm supposed to be getting out of a trip vs how much braindead goofing off I'm doing. There are times for both.

As for environmental impact, I think there is certainly an unfortunate factor of social perception making people fly half way around the world to Bali and destroy the local ecology in the process because Bali is supposed to be this enviable getaway place. But there's such a thing as a place being overrated, and if you arrive with high expectations, there's surely going to be a disappointment (even if you don't want to admit it). At some point, a beach is a beach. Coronado beach - just a hop away for me - is just as relaxing to me as Frasier island in middle-of-nowhere Australia.

If you're looking for unusual travel experiences with minimal ecological footprint, something that I've found nice (at least for major hubs in north america) is the atlas obscura city guides. Many spots there aren't even on maps (let alone touristic ones), and can't possibly take your whole day, so they're a great excuse to really go off the beaten path.

I read a travel writing essay once that argued basically that there is very little true original travel left in the world in a post National Geographic era. That everything accessible to visit has been seen before by someone.

Travel and exploration (what you're describing) are two very different things.

This was the way the author defined travel (vs tourism) in the context of travel literature. Perhaps a little different than colloquial usage.

(Swamps are actually important ecosystems, and help protect human settlement from flooding & hurricanes)