This comment falls directly into the "things never change" fallacy.
This fallacy can be applied whenever anyone complains about any change anywhere. Picking one sample piece of anecdotal data from another period that can roughly be lined up with some other vague impressions of today does not refute the claim.
I have no strong opinion on overtourism or the effects on it by social media, but I'm willing to listen to people who discuss it without dismissing them.
That sounds interesting. I looked for it, and I just found references to the "tradition fallacy" that only deals with resistance to change.
Can you provide a link?
> Picking one sample piece of anecdotal data from another period that can roughly be lined up with some other vague impressions of today does not refute the claim.
I provided an anecdote example as a means to be more pedagogic. It is easier to understand concepts from the concrete to the abstract. So you are completely right, my anecdote does not refute the claim.
You can probably cover every habit of thought and discourse under a banner of fallacy, if you pick out the ways in which they are used badly - since people tend to think badly due to misapplied habits.
This exaggeration of this behavior has increased contrast. It is both easier to identify and self-identity people who aren't victim to this pattern. There were never the good old days, speaking in a formal logical manner. However, in the good new days it is easier to identify this bullshit and pry oneself away from it.
https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/learn-about-art...
It's not like you can spin up 20 more instances of the historic city center when you get 20x the usual traffic. Result: cities literally divided against themselves, transformed into a tourist-factory-slash-amusement-park that nobody lives in, segregated from the actual living city.
What, me bitter about my hometown being disneyfied? Nooooosir...
Hilter invaded Poland in Sept 1939 and VE-Day was May 8, 1945; so the war in Europe lasted 68 months. 75 years ago the war was 47 months old, or 69% complete. I consider the final 30% of something the "tail end." It's weirdly pedantic and downright antisocial to go around arguing "tail end" means something else, especially when its entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Since the internet is for cats I did some quick Googling and looks like, on average, a cats tail is around 34% of their total length (body plus tail) so saying the final 30% of something is the tail end is objectively accurate. Unless you want to go around arguing that some cats don't have tails.
1943 was the year when German advance was halted and they began to be pushed back by Soviet army. It's right in the middle of the war if you look at the map instead of calendar.
This type of dismissal - that people discussing change are nothing more than baseless nostalgics, is really becoming it's own tired trope.
The article gives quite concrete examples of recent-ish developments that are an annoyance to both other residents and other travelers. Large groups of selfie sticks, outsized queues, neighborhoods bereft of actual locals, etc.
The article also discusses sustainability which is a pretty important topic on a planet with 7.6 billion people. How is that a fallacy exactly? An increasing population and a global expansion of middle class people, two elements that factor a booming tourism industry are very rooted in fact.[1]
>"No, people in the past were not looking for "more authentic experiences"."
Nowhere in this article is that claim even staked. It's also very odd that you then go on to mention a couple who brought back some small keepsakes and mementos from a trip as evidence of this. People keep reminders from local events in their life as well and it has nothing to do with "authenticity."
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/global_...
1. No more staring at signs and menus in confusion. Snap a picture with Google translate and viola.
2. Related to #1, no more getting lost using public transit or walking because you can't read street signs. Google Maps with walking directions, transit directions was a LIFE-CHANGER.
3. No more being LIMITED to phrases in your phrasebook. Again, Google translate.
4. No more worries about being taken advantage of by local taxis or figuring out local taxi customs. Uber and Uber clones.
5. No more getting trapped at tourist trap restaurants or overpriced "officially" reviewed restaurants. Google search again.
6. Waze can help you navigate to the most secluded spots, even when the local signs become sparse.
I could keep going...
Actually, it's amazing how much it was Google and local clones of Uber. Yelp and Uber aren't as popular in the countries we visited as I expected.
Honestly it was almost a little too easy, in some ways I didn't feel like I was in a foreign land... I felt at total ease in any neighborhood, because even if no taxis were around, just hail a ride.
Rented a car multiple times and drove around because Waze was great everywhere if Google Maps broke down.
Overall I LOVED that technology has made experiencing a foreign country almost trivially easy.
Technology absolutely lowers many barriers to travel.
The difference between this trip and my last trip was unbelievable.
...and then you can complain on FB how many people are on that supposedly "secluded" spot. Surprise: technological innovation applies to them as well.
Indeed, technology removes many bottlenecks...but as we should know here on HN, all that ever did was expose other bottlenecks elsewhere in the pipeline - and physical scarcity is a far harder bottleneck than knowledge imbalance.
Each of us seeks different things in their free time. I for example usually don't turn on phone for days during travelling.
Likewise for planning each and every meal via reviews.
Google translate might mean that you don't even try to learn the basics of a local language.
The reason I'd agree with your timeline is one thing you did not mention -- wealth explosion. Purely recreational international travel is and always has been relatively expensive.
Also XIX c. passports were without biometry (ie without photography of the holder).
I also fail to see what this article is stating. That people are travelling to build a personal brand. Maybe some people but nobody in my circle. Everyone I know travel because they want new experiences. They save little items and trinkets from those experiences to remember them. Not to post them on social media.
* Assuming by offline you mean not-shared, rather than literally offline. Anyone with a smart phone is most likely backing up their photos to iCloud/Google photos.
That is my point. In the past, people did the same things, if that does not make them superficial we are neither. We should not judge our contemporaneous travellers so lightly.
Guess with howany people the photo albumhas been shared compared to the social media post?
There's something to be said for trying to preserve local flavor while accommodating tourists though, and that's a line each tourist spot will have to find for themselves. Some will probably inevitably become expat party towns, while others will probably strike the right balance.
You are technically correct.
Most people are fully aware that what happened there is a tragedy. Most people also have an instant-no-thought habit to smile when having a picture taken. Is it really any better for them to take a picture and be solemn? Is that enough or do they need to express deep sadness for these pictures? Would others claim these sad emotions are just for show anyway? And if so, should we expect people to just not take pictures at all at the WTC memorial? And if so, at what point in time can we start taking pictures at a place with our normal happy faces?
People are there. They are happy they are there, even though 'there' (where ever 'there' is) may be a place that causes them to have emotions on the sad part of the emotional spectrum.
Think of funerals. It's a sad place to be (perhaps sadder since the person who died is someone well known as opposed to a lot of unknown people, but I won't judge either way). Family and friends are together, which usually makes people happy. It's a mixed bag of emotions. If someone happens to smile in a picture there it's probably more to do with habit of smiling for pictures or happiness to be with family and friends (perhaps first time in a while) than it is for being happy the deceased is deceased or for social status boosts.
The article falls directly into the "good old days" fallacy. No, people in the past were not looking for "more authentic experiences".
I bought in a flea market a photo album of a trip of some Swedish couple in the 60s. It is awesome. It could be posted picture by picture on Facebook and nobody will notice. Except by details like that the plane tickets, included in the album, were printed by a mechanical typewriter. Also includes tourism flyers, tickets for the theatre, and a menu from a restaurant. Sounds familiar? Because people are people in all places at all times.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Good_old_days