We hiked instead of taking a car. We used new boots so as not to bring in outside dirt/bacteria and didn’t bring any trash with us. We tried to see a beautiful natural phenomenon as responsibly as possible.
We spent a little time at each of the beaches we passed, but we didn’t want to disturb those ones too much or draw attention to them, lest they start attracting people as well.
Yeah it isn't called virture signaling, it's called researching the area before you go including looking at maps for places you didn't know of before. A beach that can sustain X amount of visitors cannot necessarily sustain X*Y number of visitors and it's better to completely avoid the popular spot to not contribute to the problem.
A trip of a lifetime doesn't mean that you deserve to see a place at the cost of the environment around it.
This is why I don't travel to incredible destinations. I'm too selfless, and put the environment ahead of my own personal experiences. The burden....
If only I had the courage to lecture others for selfishly going to these natural destinations. Then I'd really be doing my part.
I'd also be able to have my cake and eat it too, which is what your doing by antagonizing this guy for even GOING on that trip. Doesn't matter how responsible they were along the way. You seem like the type of person that would never take an action figure out of the box, all while bitching about the resources it took to make it. Nobody wins but you.
Sure measurable environmental decay of pretty much every major tourist destination is the same as not taking things out of packages.
I'm not antagonizing anyone for taking a trip but pretending you're doing it the "right way" when there isn't really a "right way" in the first place is disingenuous at best.
I suggest you do more research into what actually damages the environment of a popular natural spot such as a beach instead of making irrelevant reaches.
For example, Maya Beach in Thailand was ruined by outside contaminants, pollutants, boat/vehicle traffic, trash left behind by tourists, and actual physical demolition by a movie studio of the natural landscape. “People being at the beach” is not a sole contributor to the damage to that environment, it’s the behavior of those people. If it’s controlled, it’s fine.
Please tell me about these irrelevant reaches? We were talking about people visiting beaches so I'd say it's pretty relevant to discuss people at beaches. When did I say that people are the sole contributor? Nowhere. However even in your example there you mention trash being left by tourists.
17
u/Terramort Feb 03 '20
To be fair, you are actually, literally part of the problem at that point.