Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to show that sustainable tourism, the widely accepted benchmark for the present and future responsible tourism industry is, and will continue to be, a myth. The paper takes the form of a review essay and relies on discussions of concepts, comparisons, and examples rather than field research and empirical data to define the problem and draw conclusions. We use the folkloric myth of Plutus, the god of wealth and abundance, to underscore two moral themes. The first is that wealth is blind, and second that seeking wealth and abundance is an entrenched aspect of human nature, with greed (avarice) consistently destabilizing societal improvements. Science shows us what the problems are (e.g., climate change), while ethics tell us how to address these problems. However, it seems that we still cannot find our way to a sustainable tourism future. What is playing out in the theatre of sustainable tourism, therefore, is far from a comedy and much more like a tragedy, as tourism in its current forms has become too much of a good thing, rendering “sustainable” a meaningless term. Overtourism, overdevelopment, disparities, and injustices are now the norm in the maelstrom of global tourism, with no palpable end in sight.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".