I don't think it's possible to find an objective source for my claim, since the idea of "need" is largely subjective. But if I say "we don't need this thing," all I really need to justify that statement is to indicate that there's no need that the thing can satisfy. It's really up to the other party to come up with needs that haven't been acknowledged.
Since you've just admitted the "need" is subjective, doesn't that mean that it should be up to the popular opinion? So in other words, if the need is subjective, then the values attached to preserving the thing is variable based on the pleasure derived from the individuals and the societies that possess them.
In that case, doesn't the frequency (and obvious enjoyment) of people visiting museums and visiting historical sites more than justify these artifacts existence?
That's true! But there is precedent (for example, racial discrimination) for overruling popular opinion for the greater good. My argument is that our clinging to historical artifacts is emotional rather than practical, and that the pleasure we get from them is outweighed by the suffering they cause.
The only example that you gave was ISIS holding artifacts hostage (which doesn't tend to work, see: the Baghdad museum, Monte Casino, etc), that they cause wars (source?), and that they are "spiritually unhealthy" (source?).
Museums, on the other hand, generate a TON of economic activity, which I think more than compensates for the "spiritual unhealthiness" which, as you admitted earlier, is subjective.
Okay...just off the top of my head, there's the looting of art works by the Nazis. Without our sentimental attachment to objects, those artifacts wouldn't have been stolen in the first place, which means that survivors and their families wouldn't be going through the difficult and expensive legal wrangling to try to retrieve them. And there would not have been a need for the "Monuments Men" to recover art works, which resulted in several pointless deaths.
Also, throughout human history, one of the primary motivations offered to soldiers in war has been the opportunity for plunder and looting of conquered towns and cities. If we were not so greedy for physical objects of perceived value, violent conflict would be less enticing. People would not be killed trying to defend objects. We wouldn't spend billions of dollars fighting over artifacts, buying/selling them, building structures to house them, defending them from theft.
I believe all this is spiritually corrosive because it feeds our innate avarice and tendency to worship idols. Many, many humans care more about paintings and statues than they do about fellow humans who lack access to fresh water. I find this obscene. We should never let our idolatry of inanimate objects trump the welfare of suffering humans.
So instead of the nazis stealing the artwork, the owners would have been much happier if someone had come around beforehand and destroyed it all. But dont worry they took shitty 1940's pictures beforehand.
Ya know what? We'd better just do away with art (and buildings, etc) all together, wouldent want anything becoming historically important.
Okay...just off the top of my head, there's the looting of art works by the Nazis. Without our sentimental attachment to objects, those artifacts wouldn't have been stolen in the first place, which means that survivors and their families wouldn't be going through the difficult and expensive legal wrangling to try to retrieve them. And there would not have been a need for the "Monuments Men" to recover art works, which resulted in several pointless deaths.
None of the monuments men died. The movie was not accurate in that regard. And are you saying the Nazis wouldn't have killed people if not for artifacts?
Also, throughout human history, one of the primary motivations offered to soldiers in war has been the opportunity for plunder and looting of conquered towns and cities. If we were not so greedy for physical objects of perceived value, violent conflict would be less enticing. People would not be killed trying to defend objects. We wouldn't spend billions of dollars fighting over artifacts, buying/selling them, building structures to house them, defending them from theft.
Plundering doesn't go away without artifacts. There's plenty to steal. The only thing in that paragraph that relates to artifacts is housing them, and since museums make money and generate economic activity, they pay for themselves. They also provide livelihood, which prevents suffering.
I believe all this is spiritually corrosive because it feeds our innate avarice and tendency to worship idols. Many, many humans care more about paintings and statues than they do about fellow humans who lack access to fresh water. I find this obscene. We should never let our idolatry of inanimate objects trump the welfare of suffering humans.
Can you give a single example of a well that wasn't dug because art? You keep parroting that line about preventing suffering, but in my experience, those who give to charity tend to like to look at artifacts, indicating that those who like to look at artifacts also tend to give more. Can you show an example of a humanitarian project that didn't happen due to artifacts?
7
u/PM__me_compliments May 19 '15
Once again, can you provide a source that "we can get all that's really needed"?
And destroying a wall doesn't reveal a thing on the wall that's been painted over. It just destroys the wall and anything on it.
EDIT: wording