food vs. food industry
sex vs. sex industry
health vs. health industry
and travel vs. travel industry

However you seem to overestimate the impact of tourism on the world. Vast areas of the world are hardly affected by tourism at all(How many tourists travel to Siberia or Nigeria or Bangladesh?) and even in countries that are popular tourist destinations tourism is concentrated in relatively few points(points not areas!). Despite the lack of tourism these places have to deal with the same problems you mention: the local culture and environment is endangered. It is not so much the impact of travel, but modernisation and globalisation in general that is responsible for this.

“All that travel in big hotels and global restaurants doesn’t help the local economy.”

That’s sure, but why do you assume that there are only big hotels and global restaurants in the world? Almost every Alpine village in Austria lives very well from tourism and there is hardly any big hotel or global restauarant in sight. Instead there are locally owned pubs, restaurants, small pensions, bed and breakfast accomodation, farm stays, etc.

I agree with your opinion on this, however, I believe that it might not necessarily be a bad thing. Let’s take Hula for example. I wonder if Hula dancing would have even survived as an art form if it weren’t for the “disneyization” of it? And another example, in my native Wyoming, there are several “chuck wagon dinners” that cater to tourists. Cheesy? Yes! But the chuck wagon dinner isn’t practical for anything other than being a tourist attraction these days, but at least the history of it is being preserved. History is important and anything that can be done to preserve history (and culture for that matter) is a worthwhile effort.

though a lot of countries are gearing up towards sustainable tourism, i’m sure that action could help protect the environment, but i’m not sure if it could protect the local culture from disappearing…

I wish I had some solutions to offer, but I too find myself merely thinking out loud.

And yet if it does, and it encourages the fanny-pack brigade to arrive and spend their dollars liberally into that country’s economy, who are we to tell them to reject the advances that this might bring them? Where we might see disappearing shacks along the river and loss of traditional ways of life, others may see a refrigerator, running water or affordable education as a result of this influx of money. In the end, we may be more interesting in preserving a way of life for our own tourism purposes than those who live it.

As an aside, I would encourage all those who make such sharp distinctions between the behaviour of travellers and tourists to spend a few days with both camps. I have seen many a fanny-pack wearer engage freely and meaningfully with local people they meet while travelling, and have met countless backpackers whose immersion in local culture centres on getting drunk/stoned/laid with other backpackers. The stereotypes might be convenient but they don’t reflect the reality. We all choose the way to travel that best suits our time/money/desire for comfort. The tourist/traveller label is unhelpful. Those who travel with the real desire to to experience and to learn are equally present in all types of travel; our instinct to lump people into groups and assign those groups with communal behaviours is a powerful and dangerous one.