Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Freedom from the Tyranny of Starbucks
The Financial Times on Burma's antique charm, as relayed by the tourism industry:
Diethelm Travel describes Burma as “truly the land that time forgot”. It raves that Burma’s three decades of “self-imposed isolation” have left a land of “unspoiled beauty and tranquillity” and an “emerald green” countryside where “time seems to have stood still”.
Precious. I hope the tour stops at the beautifully preserved Yangon General Hospital, as yet unspoiled by the scourge of modern medicine.
iih|10.8.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Kerry:
Appreciating the fact that Burma's beauty has been preserved mainly
due to the country's isolationism, does not equate to condoning the
isolationism, or the fact their hospitals are in terribly bad
conditions. I'd like to spend some time in a place that is barely
touched by the "tyranny of tourism".
thoreau|10.8.07 @ 2:52PM|#
I'd like to spend some time in a place that is barely touched by the "tyranny of tourism".
As would a lot of other people. In fact, so many people would like
to spend time in such a place that they might build some hotels,
and roads to get them there...
|10.8.07 @ 2:56PM|#
I'd like to spend some time in a place that is barely
touched by the "tyranny of tourism".
iih,
I'm flying to Pittsburgh tomorrow, actually. The lack of "tyranny
of tourism" is not all it's cracked up to be.
All,
Ask South Florida, Cancun, Hong Kong, the Carribean, Hawaii, and a
myriad of other places where mounds of tourist cash come pouring
in, how bad this tyranny really is.
Dumb Girl|10.8.07 @ 3:00PM|#
How can tourism be a "tyranny"? Did someone change the meaning
of the word?
I've always thought tyranny meant taking and ruling by force.
I guess this is why I'm a dumb girl.
iih|10.8.07 @ 3:02PM|#
thoreau:
As would a lot of other people. In fact, so many people would
like to spend time in such a place that they might build some
hotels, and roads to get them there...
I am going to get you for that :-)
One area I would not have a problem with regulation is
preservation. When I went to Walden pond first (and only) time in
life, I was appalled at the huge presence of humans there. The
funny thing is that no one (except very few) cared at all to visit
Thoreou's house cite. I would be for regulating visits to the cite,
say to 50 people every day. People would go (online) submit a
request to visit the park on a certain day. This way tourism does
not get to destroy its main product. But I may be wrong, there
could be better market-based solutions as opposed to
regulation.
(Funny that I used Walden and Thoreau in this case).
|10.8.07 @ 3:03PM|#
What's funny about it is that outsiders presume to think that
the native people wish to remain 'unspoiled' and 'quaint'. It's the
same with Rapa Nui, those people would love a little extra
life-expectancy and modern convenience, but that doesn't work for
the tourist council or people that come there for 1 day out of
their lives.
I can understand why someone would want to go somewhere while it's
'unspoiled'. But I don't think it should be romanticized or held
back from advancement, unless that's exactly what the people living
there want.
iih|10.8.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Dumb Girl: Don't take me literally. But tourism has screwed up a lot of natural resources in many places around the world.
|10.8.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Is the natural beauty is also untrampled by the twin horsemen of Electricity and Running Water?
|10.8.07 @ 3:06PM|#
It's amazing how often, when given the choice, the vast majority of people opt to "spoil" their pristine surroundings with technology, industry, etc.
|10.8.07 @ 3:09PM|#
I've had Christian missionaries tell me with a straight face how happy tribal people in Central America were until the evil Americans came down and "made them unhappy" by showing them things like electricity.
iih|10.8.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Morgan: I agree. But if I owned a natural resource, I would do my best to preserve its natural qualities by protecting it so that my "product" would live longest and would maximize my profit (if I was in fact after profit).
|10.8.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Does anyone consider Burma and the DPRK progressive forces for environmental and cultural preservation? Burma's teak forests are being stripped and its mangroves depleted. The stupas of Bagan are falling apart, despite UNESCO's best efforts to save them. Countries that prohibit contact with the outside world aren't dipped in formaldehyde. They decay.
iih|10.8.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Does anyone consider Burma and the DPRK progressive forces
for environmental and cultural preservation?
Certainly not me, but...
Burma's teak forests are being stripped and its mangroves
depleted. The stupas of Bagan are falling apart, despite UNESCO's
best efforts to save them. Countries that prohibit contact with the
outside world aren't dipped in formaldehyde. They decay.
Your original post did imply that the quote from the FT regarding
preservation of natural resources as a consequence of isolationism,
by you not commenting on it, was OK, but that the regime's
isolationism has led to terrible consequences (e.g., health care).
I have not been to Burma, so I would not know whether the quote was
accurate or not. Obviously, now, it is not.
|10.8.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Kerry, to a lot of environmentalists that doesn't matter so long as theres no McDonalds, Starbucks, or Wal-Mart.
|10.8.07 @ 3:20PM|#
I'd like to spend some time in a place that is barely touched by the "tyranny of tourism".
As would a lot of other people. In fact, so many people would like to spend time in such a place that they might build some hotels, and roads to get them there...
Reminds me of a Yogi quote, "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too
crowded."
|10.8.07 @ 3:22PM|#
So is Kerry making the point that Burma shows us the ideal form of government for the extreme environmentalist crowd?
Episiarch|10.8.07 @ 3:24PM|#
The instant some asshole talks about how great and "unspoiled" an area is, it is immidiately apparent that you are talking to a narcissistic scumbag. They want a place to be kept in a condition so that they can go there and look at it when they feel like it, preferably cheaply.
|10.8.07 @ 3:24PM|#
When I went to Walden pond first (and only) time in life, I
was appalled at the huge presence of humans there.
The irony of that statement just turned my colon inside-out.
iih|10.8.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Kerry, to a lot of environmentalists that doesn't matter so
long as theres no McDonalds, Starbucks, or Wal-Mart.
I have to admit that I, in big part, love Vermont for having very
few Wal Marts and McDonalds. Starbucks is a necessary evil. Wal
Mart isn't.
|10.8.07 @ 3:28PM|#
I would be for regulating visits to the cite
(sic), say to 50 people every day.
So that 18,250 people per year, or 0.00006 percent of the
population, can fulfill their lifelong dream.
Yep. Makes sense.
Episiarch|10.8.07 @ 3:30PM|#
Starbucks is a necessary evil. Wal Mart isn't.
WTF does this even mean? That poor people can go fuck themselves if
they need access to cheap goods, but you need your triple mocha
latte even if it is from some ugly corporation?
|10.8.07 @ 3:36PM|#
tourism has screwed up a lot of natural resources in many
places around the world.
Name one for me. Then document it.
iih|10.8.07 @ 3:38PM|#
Jamie:
People around here know that there is a pond (just a pond). They
visit it just as they would visit the local swimming pool. Ask them
about the significance of Walden and you'll get blank faces. If you
divided 18,250 by 300M, you'd need to do the calculation again,
because how many Americans would actually know of or care to visit
the pond?
Here is what I saw over there: The density was like 50 people
crammed into a tiny portion of the beach the size of a half of a
tennis court, cans and litter all over the place, cooking stuff,
etc. To them, it was just a beach. Not, in many ways, a significant
local treasure. If people knew the historical value of the place,
they'd appreciate it much better.
I guess, I am just passionate about this issue. But, just to
clarify, I am not against locals in under-developed communities
trying to capitalize on their natural treasures by having tourism.
I just hope that they don't squander their little treasure. (I have
seen that happen a lot in my country of origin Egypt. But now they
are better at preserving the natural beauty along and in the Red
Sea and the Sinai. The northern coast is mostly history now.)
iih|10.8.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Jamie:
I just named one in my last comment. Other than seeing with my own
eyes, let me look around for documentation. I am not sure I'll be
able to find something that quickly on the Internet.
|10.8.07 @ 3:40PM|#
1976, pulling into Hong Kong harbor. One of the first things
noticed by my some of my shipmates (Uncultured Ugly Americans) was
"Cool, there's a McDonalds here!" Right on the waterfront. They
sold a lot, I mean a WHOLE LOT, of Rolls Royces
there too. Amazingly enough, Hing Kong was still unique, still Hong
Kong. I am not enough of a wordsmith to begin to describe the
wonder what was the Crown Colony of Hong Kong, but it will always
have a special place in my heart. Unfetttered capitalism that even
outdid New York in many ways. McDonalds didn't harm it at all.
McDonalds was swallowed up.
BTW, I ate local, like I always do when traveling.
iih|10.8.07 @ 3:41PM|#
To my credit, I have been to Walden only once. So I am not a hypocrite in my zeal.
|10.8.07 @ 3:42PM|#
tourism has screwed up a lot of natural resources in many
places around the world.
Name one for me. Then document it.
Niagara Falls. Documentation's been done.
iih|10.8.07 @ 3:43PM|#
J sub D:
You're in Detroit. How do you find Belle Isle? I personally felt
that it was in a sorry state.
|10.8.07 @ 3:43PM|#
So is Kerry making the point that Burma shows us the ideal
form of government for the extreme environmentalist
crowd?
prolefeed, I read it as the exact opposite - that no one considers
(or should consider) the Burmese government to be environmental
stewards.
|10.8.07 @ 3:44PM|#
The density was like 50 people crammed into a tiny portion
of the beach the size of a half of a tennis court, cans and litter
all over the place, cooking stuff, etc. To them, it was just a
beach.
Then the problem isn't tourism. It's littering.
|10.8.07 @ 3:45PM|#
To my credit, I have been to Walden only once. So I am not a
hypocrite in my zeal.
If everyone were like you, and not "hypocritic in their zeal," then
Walden Pond throughout history would probably have been visited
more than a billion times.
So yes, you are a hypocrite.
Episiarch|10.8.07 @ 3:45PM|#
To them, it was just a beach. Not, in many ways, a
significant local treasure. If people knew the historical value of
the place, they'd appreciate it much better.
Why do people have to appreciate something the way you
want them to? Why can't they appreciate a pond as a pond?
iih|10.8.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Then the problem isn't tourism. It's littering.
Something in between just "tourism" and just "littering". It is
irresponsible tourism. That was my point above
(last paragraph).
|10.8.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Niagara Falls.
So, the place dried up? Looked pretty wet the last time I was
there.
|10.8.07 @ 3:47PM|#
It is irresponsible tourism.
You said yourself the people weren't there to see a historic place,
that to them it was just another beach and another pond.
Hence, it's not tourism. By definition. Get yer definitions in one
of our many fine dictionaries.
iih|10.8.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Why do people have to appreciate something the way you want
them to? Why can't they appreciate a pond as a pond?
But by doing so, the pond's market value would decrease. And this
is not how I want them to enjoy it. It is how I would like the pond
be appreciated!
|10.8.07 @ 3:49PM|#
iih,
Belle Isle should be sold to the highest bidder. It would mitigate
Detroit's budget woes considerably. The zoo is closed, the aquarium
is closed, it's gone to hell in a handbasket. Have a going away
party and sell it to developers. 5,000 wealthy homesteads would
spring up in ~3 years.
|10.8.07 @ 3:53PM|#
It is how I would like the pond be appreciated!
And I would like a fresh handjob from each of the Dallas Cowboy
cheerleaders on a nightly basis. But you know ... ain't gonna
happen.
|10.8.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Niagara Falls
Thanks! There you go Jamie.
I'm pretty sure the water's still flowing just fine. By the way, I
live about 1.3 miles from Fort Lauderdale beach, and there's
thousands of tourists in and out everyday.
Yet somehow, the city is able to keep the area from falling off the
edge of the earth...
|10.8.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Looked pretty wet the last time I was there.
Jamie Kelly, Tell me if you liked it. Honestly. I went there 38
years ago, I'll never go back. Others will, but it SUCKS!
Capitalism is not without drawbacks, it just has fewer than any
other economic system tried. Libertopia ain't a real, or possible
place. Fortunately, most Libertarians realize that. I do not
advocate taking the motels owners land, depriving them of their
fundamental property rights and turning it over to the state. That
said, it's still an ugly and depressing place.
iih|10.8.07 @ 3:59PM|#
OK, I have to admit that my natural inclination is that I would
hate that such natural resources be spoiled (but I do not want to
imply as emphasized above that I do wish that locals better their
lives though tourism). My libertarian inclination tels me that here
must be a market-based, regulation-free solution. But no one here
has offered any suggestions. I did offer one solution, which is
that the locals or the owners (corporate or otherwise) will figure
out a way to self-regulate the natural resources to preserve their
source of income.
As of this moment, Walden is owned by the residents of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So that includes me (in part) and I
will be for any mechanism of protecting that resource.
|10.8.07 @ 4:02PM|#
As of this moment, Walden is owned by the residents of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Ahem. Let's start with the definition of "libertarianism."
See what you can find wrong with your sentence.
I'll be over here.
T|10.8.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Long trip from Dallas to Missoula on a daily basis, Jamie. You
driving or are they?
In either event, make sure any tourism engaged in along the way is
responsible!
|10.8.07 @ 4:03PM|#
J sub D:
I liked it, and that was 5 years ago.
I mean, for a kid from the sticks, it was pretty cool. There was
some touristy shlock, but nothing I haven't seen here in
Montana.
Montana, btw, which has both Glacier National Park and Yellowstone
National Park, where more than 6 million people come every year --
and without any sort of significant damage to our resources.
|10.8.07 @ 4:05PM|#
Long trip from Dallas to Missoula on a daily basis, Jamie.
You driving or are they?
I thought they had virtual handjobs now. Maybe that was a futurist
porno I was watching.
iih|10.8.07 @ 4:06PM|#
As of this moment, Walden is owned by the residents of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Ahem. Let's start with the definition of "libertarianism."
See what you can find wrong with your sentence.
I'll be over here.
I know what is wrong with the statement. Until we get Libortopia, I
will do anything possible as "one of the owners" to protect it. In
Libertopia, I am sure, there will be a nice, natural, market-based
mechanism to protect our resources. But until then, in the here and
now, I will do with what I have.
iih|10.8.07 @ 4:08PM|#
Jamie:
I was in Big Sky last winter. Loved it too. In fact appreciated the
fact that it was less "touristic" than Copper Mountain and other
locations in Colorado.
(OK, I am a hypocrite after all, I like to travel, but really, I
swear, in the most responsible way ;-) )
|10.8.07 @ 4:14PM|#
OK, I am a hypocrite after all, I like to travel, but
really, I swear, in the most responsible way
There's your libertarian solution.
People who tend to travel a lot tend to realize they would like to
have these places to visit, and eventually will not destroy
them.
High schoolers on daddy's teet going to Cancun for SPRING BREAK!
WHOOO! are not going to show the same respect...
|10.8.07 @ 4:14PM|#
I was in Big Sky last winter.
Great skiing, getting pricier and ritzier by the minute. The
Yellowstone Club, in Big Sky, is a private subdivision where you
have to have at least $5 million in liquid assets just to apply for
membership. Private 18-hole golf course, private ski hill, fucking
opulent as shit. I played the piano there at a gig two summers ago,
and they made me take off my shoes to walk across the imported
Chinese cherry hardwood floors.
iih|10.8.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Jamie:
Well, someone paid for it. I was there for business, but managed to
enjoy my time there.
As far as culture is concerned, Montana (to me) is closely
associated with many libertarian ideals that I have. I guess it
must have been Col. William Ludlow from Legends of the
Fall.
How libertarian are Montanans? Politics aside, Tester has a very
admirable character, I think. Typical Montanan?
I met a person at the airport who was very bitter about the
multi-million houses being built by out-of-state visitors who do
not care the heck about Montana, but only about having a nice house
in a nice area.
|10.8.07 @ 4:56PM|#
I met a person at the airport who was very bitter about the
multi-million houses being built by out-of-state visitors who do
not care the heck about Montana, but only about having a nice house
in a nice area.
I think that when people find a nice place to live or vacation,
they generally want it to remain as it is. Unfortunately, we live
in a dynamic world and nothing stays the same. In spite of all
efforts, wonderful places don't remain secrets for long. Recognize
one, get in on the ground floor, make a mint! What is more
American/Libertarian than that. I decry the spoiling,
commercialization, and crowding of unique places, but I despise the
attempts to have government regulate "Smart Growth" and the
trampling of other peoples property rights even more. All so that
the first ones in can keep others out. Basically, these attempts
are "I've got mine, Fuck You." Fuck my neighbor who wants to sell
his property to the highest bidder, too. I understand why these
attempts are being made, but I would be have more respect for the
regulatory takers if they'd would be honest about their
motivations.
I wouldn't agree with them, but I do respect when someone acts in
their own self interest and says so.
|10.8.07 @ 5:02PM|#
Big Sky, huh?
Did you guys see the Skyful[sic] of Liars they were talking
about?
*ducks*
|10.8.07 @ 5:03PM|#
I had my fill of this sentiment when I went to Nepal in '99.
Somehow, the poverty on the streets of Kathmandu was charming and,
like, REAL, man, to the backpackers I met there. It made me sick.
People so wealthy they can travel to the ends of the earth and
avoid bathing for a while who would condemn the Nepalese to abject
poverty forever as a way to stick it to the man.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, smells worse than the random backpacker
you meet in Nepal, but the worldview somehow manages to be even
more repellent than the odor.
T|10.8.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Big Sky is ritzy now? Huh. Admittedly my memories are dim, but it didn't seem all that 25 years ago. Maybe if I went to Montana more than once every decade I could keep up.
fyodor|10.8.07 @ 6:07PM|#
who would condemn the Nepalese to abject poverty
forever
How would the smelly backpackers accomplish this? They're surely
not accomplishing it by spending money there! If poverty is a
tourist attraction, surely it's a self-negating one! And what's
wrong with appreciating some of the differences poverty brings?
While visiting Mexico we were impressed with the healthier
attitudes that were shown towards activities Americans would
regulate out of existence owing to being able to afford the luxury
good of a neurotic cautiousness toward anything possibly
dangerous!
iih|10.8.07 @ 6:13PM|#
Big Sky is ritzy now? Huh. Admittedly my memories are dim,
but it didn't seem all that 25 years ago. Maybe if I went to
Montana more than once every decade I could keep up.
And I am sure it was more pristine back then that it is now.
iih|10.8.07 @ 6:15PM|#
J sub D:
You raise some very good points. It suffices to say that we are not
in Libertopia, hence the tentative screw-ups with natural
resources.
iih|10.8.07 @ 6:16PM|#
TakTix:
Big Sky, huh?
Did you guys see the Skyful[sic] of Liars they were talking
about?
*ducks*
Chicken!
DUMB HIPPY|10.8.07 @ 6:22PM|#
but their shitty hospitals mean they die out more rapidly, and
*consume less*... which is like, good, because of mother earth and
stuff
(starts twiddling his dreadlock)
...also, i hear they're like totally cool with weed and shit. Man,
fuck Bush. The whole mainstream media is bullshit. That place is
probably like totally awesome, but those neocons are like, naw
dude, you know? Like, something to do with oil, or like ingredients
for some fucking drug they want to keep secret. I saw this movie,
what was it...Dr Quigley? some shit in the jungle with that james
bond guy. The indians were totally cool until they built like mall,
or logging or something. thats why i only use organic hemp papers
man. I sell these too, yo, try these out dude. they give 20% to
those indians that do mesc
GILMORE|10.8.07 @ 6:34PM|#
speaking of responsible tourism (which sounds really gay, btw...
) a british buddy went to Iran for a month last year... which i
thought was mad-ballsy tourism
I think personal choice is not something you need to justify on a
moral basis. I dont think places are 'spoiled' unless the native
people there are willing to tolerate crass behavior. Cant have your
cake and eat it too.
Fluffy|10.8.07 @ 7:40PM|#
It's not development that's wrong-headed - it's TOURISM.
Hear me out here.
The entire notion that one can travel to "odd" places and stare at
them for entertainment is flawed at its root. Unless you're talking
about natural wonders like Yellowstone. The idea of going to
"unspoiled Burma" is rooted in a sort of colonialist
nostalgia.
The existence of cultures distinct enough to make travelling to
them worth the trouble was only possible prior to the development
of the very transportation technologies that make it possible for
you to go there. It's a Catch-22. Uneven levels of technological
development and political oppression that retarded economic growth
have kept the tourism machine running a lot longer than it really
should have.
There will be no reason to travel eventually because the
distinctions between one city and another will be too trivial to
justify the time and expense. All that will be left will be beaches
and museums, and a beach is pretty much a beach when you get right
down to it, and digital technologies will put the museum out of
business as a physical place eventually.
iih|10.8.07 @ 8:57PM|#
Buy Walden, and you can limit whatever you'd
like.
I'd do it if I had the money, and if the law allows it. Until then,
as a tax-payer, and partial owner of it, I'll have to work with
what I have.
|10.8.07 @ 10:53PM|#
Maybe this is where "Tragedy of the Commons" and "Tyranny of the Masses" collide.
Paul|10.9.07 @ 12:15AM|#
I'd like to spend some time in a place that is barely
touched by the "tyranny of tourism".
Yep, you and thousands of other people. Funny how that works.
|10.9.07 @ 7:44AM|#
Given Burma's contemporary history this kind of third world poverty glorification is especially loathesome. Anyone seen the wedding video of Than Shwe's daughter? Truly sickening. A lot of Burmese people can't afford two sticks to rub together, try to drink extra water to take their mind off their hunger and yet some callous a-hole is waxing on about the pristine beauty of Burma.
iih|10.9.07 @ 9:52AM|#
Mikhael:
some callous a-hole is waxing on about the pristine beauty of
Burma.
What is the problem with that? The trouble there does not take away
from the fact that Burma has pristine resources! The problems with
Burma's politics has been, and will continue to be, extensively
discussed on H&R and elsewhere. This was a different angle on
things!
|10.9.07 @ 10:30AM|#
Fluffy, this completely homogeneous world you describe sounds mad depressing. I hope it never comes to be.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|10.9.07 @ 10:42AM|#
What is the problem with that? The trouble there does not
take away from the fact that Burma has pristine
resources!
You really need to learn to read. Burma doesn't have pristine
resources, they have undeveloped land. Look at Kerry's response
above you freaking moron.
iih|10.9.07 @ 11:33AM|#
TPG:
Funny that I was defending whatever is left of the land and I get
to be called a moron! Obviously you haven't read my response at
3:18 you moron!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245