4 ms·

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.

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.