When Good Things Go Bad - Tourism

Tourism, in most cases, is not good. Every time a tourist goes to an impoverished nation, the perceptions that tourist has of that country is based upon what he or she sees. In other words, the country of Jamaica is just a platform for resorts; Spain is only a country where people eat and watch bullfights all the time; the Japanese are constantly in kimonos and eating sushi. The mainstream tourist these days barely ever wants to experience the true place he or she is visiting. Thus, when tourists go to impoverished nations, since the majority of the people will not see the impoverishment, the collective thought of the masses will be that the situation in that country is "not that bad."

However, when globalization makes it so that countries like Jamaica can't really make enough for their country's economy to survive, one can only think of one resource that is still in demand in their country: Jamaica itself. People go all over the world to stay at luxury resorts so that they can enjoy delightful scenery and be pampered at the same time - because their lives are so difficult. Regardless, the people that come spend lots of money and that money goes into the financial system in Jamaica. In other words, the only reliable income for Jamaica (and other islands nations) is the money of "fat cat" tourists; therefore, we run into the main problem with the environmental debate: do you care about the economy of poor countries or do you care about the environment?

This is not an easy question for me to answer - for the problem here is that the poorest countries have the most to lose, in this situation, if tourism is curbed throughout the world. Then again, if tourism is curbed, then poor nations will suffer even more. To me, then, this is the only environmental issue that really can hurt poor nations. So, it appears to me that, if we are to take environmental protection measures, then there still must be some way to assure that a steady inflow of cash makes it to poor nations that rely solely on tourism. (Quick digression: I also understand that many developed nations rely on tourism as a staple of their economy - Spain, for example - but MDCs do not have tourism as their backbone).

If the world takes a global stance on environmental protection, it must find a way to ensure the financial safety of these nations. The only thing that comes to mind would be a stipend that LDCs would receive from MDCs which would allow them to sustain themselves during the absence of tourism. Anything else would cripple island nation's economy, which would in turn demolish MDCs' economies down the road. A drop in the bucket now makes a lot more sense that getting doused in that water later.

Is that the best solution? I don't know, but I do know that this issue emphasizes the "poorer getting poorer dilemma", and, unfortunately, a great cause is what causes it.