Hacker News Reader

Comment by avar | Hacker News Reader

> “Panama and Colombia are the only neighboring nations on the globe without a single road link of even the most primitive kind.”

It probably doesn't really count, but via OpenStreetMap I found that they have a joint military base that crosses their border.

Everything's airlifted in, but on the photo in this article it looks like they've got at least a couple of ground vehicles there, and presumably tracks crossing the border: https://www.critica.com.pa/sucesos/no-existe-ninguna-base-mi...

More surprising to me is that on the Atlantic coast there's small towns on either side of the border seemingly without a road connection to other adjacent towns in their respective countries, as well as no cross-border connection (but there's a short hiking route): https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/8.6626/-77.3683

So it's not only an issue of crossing the swampland of the greater gap itself, but also the general underdevelopment of these countries.

View on HN

Panama is not necessarily that underdeveloped. It is a middle income country as is Colombia. Colombia due to its size and war is more uneven in the development of infrastructure. Having towns only accessible by boat is not necessarily a measure of the capacity for a country to build infrastructure. It isn't that uncommon for even a rich country to have areas accessible only by boat. Consider Jeanu, Alaska.

Northern South America has some incredible challenges when in comes to terrain in general. The former columnist on Latin America at the Economist left it as his final thesis that this fact explains why the region is not more rich, despite a wealth of natural resources:

https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2022/12/08/latin-amer...

If one has ever been on the road between Villavicencio and Bogotá or passed through Tungurahua to Pastaza in Ecuador they can appreciate the difficulties that were overcome to build those roads. The rough terrain is one reason why less than 50 miles from modern cities in Ecuador there are still uncontacted native people. Given this northern South American baseline, if someone who knows the area says the terrain is unforgiving it is unforgiving.

"Colombia due to its size and war is more uneven in the development of infrastructure."

Colombia has parts that remind you of Miami. I guess the drug money had to go somewhere :-) But Colombia IS an amazing place. Its culture, people, history, food and extremely diverse climate, it just overwhelms you. From the Caribbean, to the mountains to the Amazon, there are few places in the world with such a diverse climate. Medellin is the city of eternal spring. And Bogota, the district of Candelaria, I always found it a magical place. But I think nobody likes Bogota except of me.

T-Shirts worn by the tourist information: "Colombia, the only risk is that you want to stay"

I adore Bogota. And when you are on top of Montserrat and see the other peaks - as if you are in the Tolkien's Misty Mountains

Every person I've spoken to who visited Colombia warned of two things: 1) There is a very large homeless/beggar population in the cities, who prey on tourists. 2) If you like to explore countries beyond typical tourism, it's safer to do this with a native Colombian that you trust, who knows the dangerous places.

Oddly when I speak to Colombians, they refute both of these warnings every time. I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing to downplay danger or discomfort, but those are #1 on my travel priority list.

"1) There is a very large homeless/beggar population in the cities, who prey on tourists"

They had this long time ago, they now have this again. This is mainly caused by poor Venezuelan immigrants.

#1 on my travel priority list.

Possibly. But I think we traveled in very different places. Forget Somalia, try to travel in Venezuela (hint: Dont!)

Bogota is comparable to a large American city in terms of safety, visible homelessness, and so on. The rich neighborhoods feel like suburban California.

Like most of Latin America the very poor areas are beyond anything you’re likely to see in the US but unless you’re the kind of person who’s also afraid of Miami or New York City you’d have nothing to worry about.

Many countries that aren't systematized to the same degree as advanced economies don't report the true level of crime, and those who rely on tourism have additional incentive not to. Much of Colombia is palpably dangerous and overflowing with prostitution, even minors, while cops look the other way.

I shared global per-capita murder rates by city, a notoriously difficult-to-falsify metric. I verified the data's reliability by cross-referencing Wikipedia (Statista) with official UN and OECD sources.

Regarding prostitution in Colombia, it's legalized since 2016, which may explain its greater visibility.

Colombia's major exports are commodities; while tourism has grown, it's not the primary export.

> Oddly when I speak to Colombians, they refute both of these warnings every time. I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing to downplay danger or discomfort

It's just a practical bias. You see this everywhere on Earth.

Natives aren't the victims of the crimes alleged, so since they don't see it, they assume it's not actually happening as often as reported.

For example, #2-- I've heard the same about Brazil, then heard the denials by Brazilians, and shortly after that there was that tourist couple who got murdered when their GPS routed them through a slum.

Tourists anywhere are conspicuous, vulnerable and lucrative prey. The #1 travel safety advice anywhere is never letting yourself appear lost or confused. Hence, the advice to only travel off-course with a local you trust.

This advice sounds a bit out of date. I spent 3 months cycling solo through Colombia a year or two back and it was fine. Lots of villages to stop at, most of them have places to eat and stay the night. To be fair I neither went deep into the jungle nor spent any time in either Medellin or Bogota, but there's plenty of countryside to visit along the Rio Magdalena that is pretty safe.

It might be back up to date due to the Venezuelan immigrants (that don't have money). I have been there at least 10 times. Never hat any issue with counterfeit money. Last time I got stuffed with it.

Recommended, rafting in the jungle. Loved it: https://expeditioncolombia.com/tours/rafting/rafting-day-tri...

> Northern South America has some incredible challenges when in comes to terrain in general.

The Gotthard tunnel was completed in 1882, after 11 years of construction. And that was with the incentive of linking northern and southeastern Europe!

Columbia declared independence in 1810.

So it's not surprising that a project of complexity that economically required European levels of industrialization hasn't been successful.

Hell, Venezuela's been struggling with the Puerto Cabello - Encrucijada link for how long now? And the Bárbula Tunnel is half the length of Gotthard and in a single country. https://tunnelbuilder.com/News/Puerto-Cabello-La-Encrucijada...

They CAN do it, they just don’t want to. Same reason that BART doesn’t go to from San Francisco to the North Bay. A road network connecting South America to Central America would be encourage the free flow of drugs, crime, and human trafficking.

Boats are the most appropriate transport to connect those villages. You can even see a ferry service marked on OSM which stops at several towns. I've visited similar places, and there are generally water taxis that will take you where you need to go, deliver goods and post etc. Motorised land transport isn't useful in a small, isolated village surrounded by extremely rough terrain.

Note the contour lines: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/8.66221/-77.36813&laye...

The walking track is marked as steps on the Colombian side. It ascends about 50m in very roughly 100m distance, then descends equally steeply.

i was in Colombia 6 years ago for work (Medellin). 2 things stuck with me:

- there was a part of the city that was kind of fenced off for security purposes. that’s where all the hotels were. once outside of that area guns were everywhere. and you could tell there was a gun culture as every gun was modified.

- the locals were telling me to never go to the north of the country. apparently the people there were in the habit of kidnapping for ransom. there were also rumours of drug/gun trafficking.

> people there were in the habit of kidnapping for ransom

"People there" is likely an exageration. Illegal armed groups.

https://colombiareports.com/colombia-illegal-armed-groups-ma...

The FARC group goes back 50+ years and was inspired by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. There are still radicals who have not laid down their weapons or profit from drug trade or gold mining operations.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/farc-che-gueva...

> there was a part of the city that was kind of fenced off for security purposes. that’s where all the hotels were

I've been to Medellín several times, and stayed in some of the nicest and most popular hotels, as well as in various local neighborhoods. I never saw a fenced off part of the city.

+1 No idea what GP is talking about. I lived in Medellín for a while and never saw a single gun.

I saw a couple guns. Even had a friend of mine get robbed at gun point in broad daylight.

I mean, yeah, guns definitely exist (though I happened to never see any) but this is still not the same as

> guns were everywhere

;)

when i was there guns were everywhere. guards at fancy houses with big guns, checkpoints near my hotel, police with guns on the street, etc coming from the UK where even the police doesn't have guns, it was weird, but expected.

regarding the "fenced off" hotel area, not sure what was happening, but it was known to the locals that that was the "safe tourist area". maybe it was a temporary thing? maybe some foreign/local politicians was staying/visiting? no idea. but there were checkpoints all around the hotel area.

> maybe it was a temporary thing?

Yeah, must have been.

What area were you staying in?

>More surprising to me is that on the Atlantic coast there's small towns on either side of the border seemingly without a road connection to other adjacent towns in their respective countries

This is also true of Newfoundland. There are many small fishng villages on "the Rock" with no road connections; the only link to the rest of the world is by sea.

(This is also true of many small villages in Alaska, whether on the coast or not, but there this is less surprising.)

There's also the issue that the almost impenetrable jungle is (govs say "was") used by drug trafficers and is dangerous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap#By_land

"underdevelopment" is a loaded and also dominionist term. If we connected every human settlement on earth with roads, it's game over for the remaining natural reserves. Putting roads through the Amazon is what really accelerated development of agricultural territory.

No, it’s an accurate and objective term. All you’re saying is that we need to keep some places underdeveloped in order to protect the environment. Which is an entirely fair point.

It's not objective. "Under" implies some ideal state of development, and that anything under that threshold is deficient, which is subjective. That's why I say it's a loaded term.

What would work instead? Lesser-developed and greater-developed? Sub-developed and super-developed?

>"Under" implies some ideal state of development

No, not necessarily "ideal". It simply implies there is an average or median level, with instances that are lower and instances that are higher.

>anything under that threshold is deficient

I think if you wanted a loaded term, you'd use something more like "development-deficient" and "development-abundant".

Fair enough - I guess I should have been a little more precise: I really meant that "underdeveloped" has a specific meaning, rather than "under" by itself.

"Underdeveloped" doesn't mean "less than average development", it means "not and/or insufficiently industrialized", implying a problem to be solved.

I don’t know about you, but if I walk into a restaurant’s toilet and see the river flowing below the hole,[1] I’d say that it might need a little more development. I don’t think literal shit rivers can be part of any developed nation. Objectively. Much less rivers where people fish and swim in.

    [1] I saw it in person in Laos and also in this popular video https://fb.watch/nQ-Xvh9iLO/

Natural areas?

No, "under-" means "below some baseline". If that baseline is objective (e.g. "the mean development of the most developed country") then "underdeveloped" is objective, just relative.

It implies a problem that needs solving. Undernourished, underbaked, underachiever. I’m struggling to think of a word so-constructed that doesn’t imply a need for improvement, aside from ones that are purely positional (undercoat). Underbid, I guess, but that seems in a different category to me.

It seems appropriate to me to describe a slum with poor roads and power as underdeveloped, but weird to describe wilderness as underdeveloped. The former brings to mind philanthropic NGOs, the latter, villains from popular pro-environmentalism fiction.

Sure, but that doesn't make it a subjective adjective. It just tells you something about what the person who uses the word thinks about what the word is being applied to.

It seems weird to me to refer to wilderness as "underdeveloped", but more because if it really is a wilderness then it should be undeveloped. If someone starts building things in it but few enough that the zone can be called "underdeveloped" then it's no longer the wilderness. In any case, what the original person said was that the country was underdeveloped. If there's not even a single road or rail between it and its neighbor, I'd say that's a fair assessment.

You don't call a low-calorie diet undernourishment.

The “under” connotes that it is less than it ought to be.

"under" implies a relationship to something else, a point of reference. That point of reference would vary (which is getting close to a definition of subjective).

Reminds me of the parable of the fisherman and banker: https://joneytalks.medium.com/the-parable-of-the-mexican-fis...

Maybe the coastal villages trade and travel by boat?

As people have done for (maybe dozens or even hundreds of) millennia.

Exactly. The capital of Alaska is on the mainland, but only reachable by boat or air.

This is the same thing as an island in practice. Pretty common for people to live on islands.

Somewhat by design. Many proposals to connect the countries have been made but there is very little interest in completing. 1) indigenous communities don't want it, 2) sensitive environment 3) mostly it's a natural border control, which would otherwise have drugs and guerilla fighters flowing through. Instead they often mule to Nicaragua skipping panama altogether.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com