The city of Venice, built upon submerged logs centuries old, slowly sinking roughly 2-3 inches into the sea annually. The great Sphinx, slowly being eroded and sand blasted by the wind, sand and natural elements. A leaning tower of Pisa that already requires weight to counterbalance it's total collapse. Ancient pillars, fallen cities, fading works of art, in a state of steady yet eventual decay without restoration, thousands of years old.
Should they be considered global works of art and saved? We already have many places designated as natural wildlife preserves, protected to remain untouched. So future generations and possible extinction of species not happen .
Should we do the same with amazing accomplishments of mankind doomed to decay without restoration and upkeep, regardless of the possible gigantic cost? Keep in mind a creation 3000 years old, once gone, is gone.
Should we preserve those amazing works orfeed a whole country of starving?
2006-12-16
20:17:41
·
2 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Arts & Humanities
➔ History
I'll elaborate given the Q. Many measures have unsuccessfully been taken to stop the sinking of Venice at astronomical cost that could infact have fed several African countries. I'd like to do both...but...given saving priceless works and helping your fellow man, regardless of their standard of living and possible resentment that they could support themselves better, use protection, curb the spread of aids, etc. Really there is no right answer...it's a terrible Q that I'd think most would want both of...Should have requestioned it in a better manner that didn't involve weighing the existance of a person. My appologies for being a dumb@ss.
2006-12-16
20:49:00 ·
update #1