The whole quote I am contesting is "economically significant but existentially loathsome", and my point is that not only are tourists not existentially loathsome, but they give purpose to the maintenance of attractions.
Near Reykjavik there's a site called something like the Golden Falls. It's a pretty waterfall. I joined a busload of retirees and other holiday-makers on a tour of sites. We stopped there, went for a walk along the concrete, saw the waterfall, photos, spent five minutes in the tourist shop, and then got back in the bus.
I considered the golden waterfalls as they would have been to hikers for centuries: a visual oasis that people stumble upon or towards after hiking for days. That would have been glorious. But - apart from these thoughts - it was otherwise meaningless.
You can't appreciate such a thing from the comfort of a bus journey and concrete walkways. The presence of the trappings of tourism would significantly deplete the value of the thing if you had hiked to it like the ancients had. Unless you were thirsty. Or injured.
And food tastes much, much better if you work hard and abstain for hours beforehand. But few of us get to do that. Maybe that's why we demand ever-more-vivid food experiences as we age? Bored of chicken soup and good bread, we want McCheese with curly fries or ultra-hot-sauce wings.
