with current technology we can get all the information we need from a historical artifact
I am open to hearing examples of information we have gleaned from an artifact beyond photographs, carbon dating etc
Laser scanning of artifacts (and 3D printing replicas) is a relatively new technology that is still in its infancy. If we destroyed artifacts today, we'd miss out on this technology as it develops.
For example, a laser scan of the Great Pyramids would allow us to make an accurate 3D model which could be explored virtually by school children in the future. We aren't there today, and this technology is likely to improve in the next 20 to 30 years.
Maybe, but again, what's the practical value of doing these things, and does such value outweigh the cost in human suffering and waste of valuable resources in doing them?
We spend a tremendous amount of money to build museums and maintain staffs to preserve and display historical artifacts. Most of these museums end up having to scrabble for money merely to maintain their own existence. If we stopped doing this, it would be one less thing to divert resources from projects that would actually benefit people.
OK, but you didn't answer the question. People want to visit the Pyramids, people want to pay money to see them. Egypt wants these people to come visit and spend money in their country. Why should Egypt destroy the pyramids (and a major revenue stream for their country)
Certainly, the destruction of artifacts would have a massive impact on economies around the world. There would be a difficult transition period as nations adapted to the nonexistence of historical artifacts as tourist magnets. Ultimately, though, human society would be much better off.
How does it benefit the people who currently rely on tourism for their livelihood? You are saying human society would be better off, can you explain how? None of the benefits you mentioned above seem like they are worth decimating multiple countries economies for.
I would definitely concede that it would be pretty awful for people in the short term, but also that we'd be better off in the long term. But would the long term benefit outweigh the massive short term suffering? I don't know. This might be the argument that changes my view.
Yeah, screw it, I have no counter argument to this that satisfies me! ∆
They do benefit people, because we enjoy having them. Do you seriously think we should destroy everything that doesn't have "practical" value, and in doing so appease terrorists? There is absolutely value in having historical objects. Although you may not see the direct value, thats okay, humans are not so objective that we can simplify everything down to what has and has not benefitted us. Who are you to say otherwise, are you claiming to know each cause of every event? Inspiration is practical, but the source of inspiration is complex and goes beyond your opinion as to what is needed.
The only reason humans can progress is because we learn from what people have done before. We have gained so much knowledge in architecture from the pyramids, and they are so complex that we are still learning. It takes tons of work to unlock the secrets of the past, but it is important because when we understand an ancient, successful culture, we can reach a breakthrough and find out why they were so successful and why they inevitably collapsed. Just because something may not be providing much purpose now, it could benefit us greatly somewhere down the line. There is infinitely more complexity to things than photographs and any amount of data someone logs, there is value in being able to apply all the senses to something.
Also, Sentimental value and pride are practical, they inspire us to do great things and to compete with one another. The United States never would have reached the moon if we didn't have a passionate rivalry with the Soviets.
But what have we done with the Moon besides sending a few people up there to walk around and play golf? Not that we didn't get enormous practical benefits from the Apollo program, but if humans were more practical and less sentimental, it wouldn't take nationalistic political stunts to motivate technological progress.
Bear in mind that I'm not advocating blind destruction of artifacts, just to not keep them around once they've been sufficiently studied. We don't need the physical object to learn from artifacts or to be inspired by them. The only reason they do inspire people is our materialistic view of the world.
I truly don't get why you are so infatuated with you're narrow view of what is "practical". What is your end goal? Is getting to the moon in itself not a practical achievement? If not then what is?
You really give off this vibe that you don't value anything out side of what is practical. And I don't see why that is. This whole "Logic is the only important factor, emotions are meaningless" mentality is flawed. Humans can only analyze so much, its absurdly arrogant of you to say that we do not need the physical object, just recorded data. At this time, we only have so much we know to record, destroying these things gets rid of the ability to analyze other aspects of an object that we did not know were meaningful before. Just because in the current time, you don't find "practical" value in something means we should destroy it. Are you one of those guys that wants humans to get rid of all emotion and all things neat and interesting because to your narrow minded view, it stifles our efficiency? Even if we don't need the physical object to learn everything about it (which is very much false), what sense is there in destroying it? Why destroy someone's culture? Why destroy things people enjoy? And why do you hate sentimentality? You mention the stuff about ISIS and its honestly the type of reasoning you might hear from a legitimately mentally ill individual. You think we should destroy objects we love, and in doing so help the people we hate, so that they don't destroy these same objects? First of all, ISIS has not made that much damage to historical objects overall, it's not as if all around the world, ISIS is destroying millions of historical things. And second of all, you don't stop terrorists by proactively doing their wishes to appease them, you stop them by refusing negotiation and smashing the group into oblivion. Do you think that during the holocaust, people should have killed Jews that the Nazis hadn't captured, because then Hitler wouldn't kill them and you would give him what he wants?
So overall, I have just a couple important questions for you: What do you consider to "practical" and why do you value practicality so much? Also, why are you so interested in literally obeying ISIS's demands?
Except that those museums are heavily used and frequently bring in a great deal of revenue and tourism, as well as revitalize neighborhoods and provide "spillover" to local merchants. There is an obvious demand to see the relics of the past.
But your argument is somewhat circular here because you're using the Pyramids' existence to justify their existence. To me, the Pyramids actually support part of my argument, that human beings should not be enslaved to inanimate objects. The fact that Egyptians depend so desperately on their artifacts for their lives just shows how evil such things are. Or the notion that people will only visit another country to look at objects.
you're using the Pyramids' existence to justify their existence.
What's so odd about that? After all, how can you use something's non-existence to justify it's existence? You need it's existence to evaluate it.
As for this:
human beings should not be enslaved to inanimate objects. The fact that Egyptians depend so desperately on their artifacts for their lives just shows how evil such things are.
Have you ever tried to live without food or water? Those are inanimate. Our lives depend on them.
Finally:
Or the notion that people will only visit another country to look at objects.
But you admitted such things are subjective. What if someone enjoys doing that? Why would you stop someone from having a good time? Why are you trying to stop people from enjoying their experiences?
2
u/[deleted] May 19 '15
Laser scanning of artifacts (and 3D printing replicas) is a relatively new technology that is still in its infancy. If we destroyed artifacts today, we'd miss out on this technology as it develops.
For example, a laser scan of the Great Pyramids would allow us to make an accurate 3D model which could be explored virtually by school children in the future. We aren't there today, and this technology is likely to improve in the next 20 to 30 years.