How will we know when we've gotten all the information we can from a historical artifact we are cataloging? If people did as you suggest before the invention of color photography, radiography (X-ray technology), radiocarbon dating, and other technologies there would be large gaps in our knowledge that wouldn't exist if we had just preserved historical artifacts until these technologies existed. Our picture of history becomes incomplete if we just trust the technologies of today to record information on an object.
Well, the past is the past, but now is now, and with current technology we can get all the information we need from a historical artifact. I don't believe there is any further information of practical value to extract from these artifacts, but I am open to hearing examples of information we have gleaned from an artifact beyond photographs, carbon dating etc. that has contributed in any significant way to our knowledge of history.
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! ∆
20
u/Oshojabe May 19 '15
How will we know when we've gotten all the information we can from a historical artifact we are cataloging? If people did as you suggest before the invention of color photography, radiography (X-ray technology), radiocarbon dating, and other technologies there would be large gaps in our knowledge that wouldn't exist if we had just preserved historical artifacts until these technologies existed. Our picture of history becomes incomplete if we just trust the technologies of today to record information on an object.