> Tourism is an economic curse similar to the curse of resources. It makes most unrelated economic activity less viable.

Got any source to back up this claim? Plenty of regions with strong tourism industries have other viable industries. San Francisco, LA, and New York are all heavy tourist destinations but no reasonable person would say that this tourism has made unrelated economic activity less viable. Same with London and Paris. Large tourism industry, but plenty of other industries.

It may be true that as other economic opportunities are exhausted, communities try to use tourism to bring in money to the community (e.g. Leavenwoth, WA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leavenworth,_Washington). Underdeveloped countries that don't have the ability to participate in many industries lean on tourism more heavily (especially eco-tourism since the lack of development is actually an asset for that industry) which makes tourism take up a larger proportion of their GDP.

But I am highly skeptical of your claim of a causal link between growth of tourism and inability to sustain other industries.

I don't know that it's a negative overall, but in general the most economically lucrative sector of commerce in an area does tend to out-compete the others. Much of Silicon Valley used to be farmland. Tech surely disrupted and ejected many farming uses of that land. Gambling disrupted the previously sleepy area of Las Vegas. Disney disrupted parts of Orlando. The auto industry disrupted much of Detroit.

I think it's generally a good thing overall, but if I were a buggy whip manufacturer around Detroit in 1920, I wasn't as happy with my lot in life 20 years later...

This is more pronounced in underdeveloped areas and especially if the whole country is underdeveloped -- people can't exactly move away to an area with a different major economic force, because all other forces are dwarfed. See this article [0] for more elaboration.

[0] http://unevenearth.org/2017/04/is-tourism-a-poverty-trap/