6 ms·

I think that these should be designated as world heritage sites, rather than as a property of a specific group that is free to destroy it at any time. Anyway,

I think that these should be designated as world heritage sites, rather than as a property of a specific group that is free to destroy it at any time. Anyway, it is not like there leaders of communities have never been corrupt.

AbrahamParangi 6y ago
Capitalism for me, nothing for thee
- magicsmoke 6y ago
  Exactly, does getting designated a world heritage site mean getting UN funding to preserve it and make up the opportunity cost of not selling it? If not, it's just wealthier countries patting themselves on the back for being such good custodians of world heritage while pushing the actual unseen costs onto the economically impoverished. If someone actually cares enough about the site, raise the money to buy it up and preserve it however you like.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    > If someone actually cares enough about the site, raise the money to buy it up and preserve it however you like. This is what has happened. It’s going to be preserved as an open cut iron ore mine.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Site#Consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Site#Consequenc... > A listed site gains international recognition and legal protection, and can obtain funds from among others the World Heritage Fund to facilitate its conservation under certain conditions.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
      That doesn’t address the question of lost opportunity cost.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  Not sure what you mean by this.
  - readarticle 6y ago
    It’s similar criticism to the ideas about removing the Amazon from Brazil’s control, which, for better or worse, pulls up the ladder before they’ve finished climbing in the interest of humanity. These arguments typically come from the hearts of post industrial societies that have already exploited their resources, cultural, environmental, and otherwise, leaving them in the aftermath with only token conservation efforts in their regions and essentially no skin in the game elsewhere. Thus: capitalism for me, none for thee.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      That would make sense if people were countries.
      - readarticle 6y ago
        That’s an interesting take. Usually the argument is over how much benefit actually comes from living in certain societies, not the concept of living in one.
bpodgursky 6y ago
Do you not think it's just a little patronizing, to imply that the native communities... can't be trusted to know how to use money to improve their communities? That they aren't educated enough balance their land against the needs of their people? Like, I could phrase this more inflammatorily, but the idea that "oh, the responsible white/asian leaders should hold the land in _trust_ for the natives, until they're responsible enough to take care of it properly"... is pretty indefensible, IMO.
- ascorbic 6y ago
  This shouldn't just apply to native communities. It should apply to all important sites. Some things are important to everyone, so the landowner has a wider responsibility.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    Sweeping generalisations and bureaucratic red tape.
  - 3D233022 6y ago
    In Sweden we have protection from many things but the problem is that the government tells you that you can't build anything, can't change anything and as a byproduct effectively made the area worthless. So I know people who have found things that are archeologically important and they dig it up, drive to a forest and throw it away. About two years ago a neighbor of a person at work found a big intact sword and they asked guy at work that is into history of that area. He was then consulted in secrete because they didn't dare go to the government for losing land valued at 200 000+ USD. The sword was very likely real and should have been displayed in a museum. So unless the government start paying real market prices for the area they create special status for, then many people will not report and instead hide it. Anytime the government here take some special are such as woods and give "fair" compensation, people are never happy because the government gives you X and you have no choice.
    - jaratec 6y ago
stubish 6y ago
As a thought experiment, how would a a site gain such a designation? Could the Commonwealth of Australia designate it as such, or apply on behalf of the traditional owners to UNESCO or similar registry? Would the traditional owners be somewhat pissed? And are there reasons it isn't already designated as a world heritage site, such as Kakadu (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/147 https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/147), which is often in the news due to its uranium deposits?
- Someone 6y ago
  “World Heritage Site” is a title countries apply for at UNESCO. Once on a list, treaties require countries to protect the site. Because of that, the decision whether to ask UNESCO to put that sticker on a site is a political choice.
  - prawn 6y ago
    And for that reason, generally Australia would favour protecting something especially notable or with tourism potential. Seems this is down the scale a bit. Nearest Western-international parallel might be Bears Ears in the US. There are specific features likely to hold off development, but other areas are sparse or remote wilderness less likely to survive political assault?

AbrahamParangi 6y ago

Capitalism for me, nothing for thee

magicsmoke 6y ago
Exactly, does getting designated a world heritage site mean getting UN funding to preserve it and make up the opportunity cost of not selling it? If not, it's just wealthier countries patting themselves on the back for being such good custodians of world heritage while pushing the actual unseen costs onto the economically impoverished. If someone actually cares enough about the site, raise the money to buy it up and preserve it however you like.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  > If someone actually cares enough about the site, raise the money to buy it up and preserve it however you like. This is what has happened. It’s going to be preserved as an open cut iron ore mine.
- adrianN 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Site#Consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Site#Consequenc... > A listed site gains international recognition and legal protection, and can obtain funds from among others the World Heritage Fund to facilitate its conservation under certain conditions.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    That doesn’t address the question of lost opportunity cost.
dependenttypes 6y ago
Not sure what you mean by this.
- readarticle 6y ago
  It’s similar criticism to the ideas about removing the Amazon from Brazil’s control, which, for better or worse, pulls up the ladder before they’ve finished climbing in the interest of humanity. These arguments typically come from the hearts of post industrial societies that have already exploited their resources, cultural, environmental, and otherwise, leaving them in the aftermath with only token conservation efforts in their regions and essentially no skin in the game elsewhere. Thus: capitalism for me, none for thee.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    That would make sense if people were countries.
    - readarticle 6y ago
      That’s an interesting take. Usually the argument is over how much benefit actually comes from living in certain societies, not the concept of living in one.

bpodgursky 6y ago

Do you not think it's just a little patronizing, to imply that the native communities... can't be trusted to know how to use money to improve their communities? That they aren't educated enough balance their land against the needs of their people? Like, I could phrase this more inflammatorily, but the idea that "oh, the responsible white/asian leaders should hold the land in _trust_ for the natives, until they're responsible enough to take care of it properly"... is pretty indefensible, IMO.

ascorbic 6y ago
This shouldn't just apply to native communities. It should apply to all important sites. Some things are important to everyone, so the landowner has a wider responsibility.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Sweeping generalisations and bureaucratic red tape.
- 3D233022 6y ago
  In Sweden we have protection from many things but the problem is that the government tells you that you can't build anything, can't change anything and as a byproduct effectively made the area worthless. So I know people who have found things that are archeologically important and they dig it up, drive to a forest and throw it away. About two years ago a neighbor of a person at work found a big intact sword and they asked guy at work that is into history of that area. He was then consulted in secrete because they didn't dare go to the government for losing land valued at 200 000+ USD. The sword was very likely real and should have been displayed in a museum. So unless the government start paying real market prices for the area they create special status for, then many people will not report and instead hide it. Anytime the government here take some special are such as woods and give "fair" compensation, people are never happy because the government gives you X and you have no choice.
  - jaratec 6y ago

stubish 6y ago

As a thought experiment, how would a a site gain such a designation? Could the Commonwealth of Australia designate it as such, or apply on behalf of the traditional owners to UNESCO or similar registry? Would the traditional owners be somewhat pissed? And are there reasons it isn't already designated as a world heritage site, such as Kakadu (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/147 https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/147), which is often in the news due to its uranium deposits?

Someone 6y ago
“World Heritage Site” is a title countries apply for at UNESCO. Once on a list, treaties require countries to protect the site. Because of that, the decision whether to ask UNESCO to put that sticker on a site is a political choice.
- prawn 6y ago
  And for that reason, generally Australia would favour protecting something especially notable or with tourism potential. Seems this is down the scale a bit. Nearest Western-international parallel might be Bears Ears in the US. There are specific features likely to hold off development, but other areas are sparse or remote wilderness less likely to survive political assault?