5 ms·
Impressive list. Isn't it up to future civilizations which parts of our culture become heritage? What is the benefit of defining it as such? Protecting the cult
by Fnoord 7y ago
Impressive list. Isn't it up to future civilizations which parts of our culture become heritage? What is the benefit of defining it as such? Protecting the culture? At what cost?
I don't mean to downplay the importance, I'm just wondering if it is up to us, and if it is worth it. Heck, can we even reasonably decide if such is worth it? Does it matter? I don't know.
- rob74 7y agoWell, all the items in the list are already "heritage" (you can include the demoscene too, which at >20 years old can also be considered "heritage" in our fast-moving field). Generally things which get on these UNESCO lists are those which a country considers to be particularly important/unique/characteristic of the country, and the benefit is attracting attention to them and thus contributing to their continued existence/protection. One random example: there are lots of Roman ruins, but if the 4th-century palace of a Roman emperor is almost continually inhabited and turned into a medieval city, that's pretty unique and worthy of the UNESCO list (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/97/ https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/97/).
- toyg 7y ago> 20? More like > 30... For comparison, it’s as “heritage” now as WWII-related items were in 1980 - i.e. quite a bit for sure.
- Mediterraneo10 7y agoThe UNESCO World Heritage site system drew international attention to historical sites that otherwise would have remained unknown. The intangible culture list does the same for the arts and other traditions. It isn't meant to say "You must like and perpetuate it" as much as "Look, this people has something cool which you might want to check out."