I think ultimately the conclusion the author reaches is an interesting one, that the real "disease" of tourism is like sepsis. It comes not from without, the tourists themselves, but from within, the changes made by locals to try to capture the opportunities for wealth that the tourists create.

The paradox of the tourist is fascinating. All at the same time, a locality experiencing a flood of tourism will welcome the sudden wellspring of foreign currency pouring forth from the rock, and loathe the disruption the flood causes to the steady pace of life. Anyone who has been a tourist knows what the tourist wants, a break from the monotony of their own culture, a desire to know the other and tread in their footsteps, in some cases a wholesome longing to break down cultural barriers and prejudice. And yet anyone who has been on the other side of the interaction with a tourist feels the heady mix of emotions that comes with the experience of being the toured. The discomfort that comes from the wall being torn down unexpectedly. The inconvenience of disruption in routine. No tourist wants to do harm, but even the most sensitive and well-meaning tourist creates a breach in routine that is disruptive. Nobody likes change.