Especially if such synthetic wilderness experiences make people aware of an actual wilderness that needs protection.
Environmental tourism is an oxymoron. Floods of tourists often end up destroying the places they are attracted to.
My parents traveled a lot with me and my siblings when I was a kid. The way my parents traveled used to infuriate me. They'd bypass all the tourists places, even when we were living in Europe. Part of it was that they didn't have the money, but part of it was they didn't care.
My affluent classmates would be bragging about their adventures to Europe, New York, etc., and I could say "Yeah, I've been there."
"Did your go to the Empire State Building? The Statue of Liberty? The Eiffel Tower?"
Nope. Me and my siblings would run around feral in some random neighborhood while my parents chatted with some eccentric person, maybe a friend or fellow artist, possibly some stranger they just met. Then we'd camp in some park no one has ever heard of.
We'd drive past Yosemite or Yellowstone and stay at some Forest Service campground, never visiting the National Parks themselves, never being part of the mob.
I have an appreciation for that kind of travel now, even in my own backyard.
Places that have been overwhelmed by tourists, that have been disconnected from their natural or cultural history by the mobs, make me sad.
On the other hand, maybe by turning places like Yosemite into artificial wilderness experiences, complete with flush toilets and the sewage treatment plant at El Portal, we take some human pressure off what remains of the actual Sierra Nevada wilderness. Unfortunately, this California wilderness is also incomplete without its wolves and grizzly bears and too many people on the trails seeking a "true" wilderness experience.
= new reply since forum marked as read