4 ms·

Interesting. There seems to be a major cultural difference on this. On the one hand, the argument is that individuals collecting artifacts destroys the scienti

Interesting. There seems to be a major cultural difference on this. On the one hand, the argument is that individuals collecting artifacts destroys the scientific utility of the excavation site. On the other hand, someone doing the work to find coins seems better than nobody doing that work and having them lay in the ground. I wonder if there are more instances of this trade-off between potential good and immediate good.

lostlogin 6y ago
> I wonder if there are more instances of this trade-off between potential good and immediate good. Trading off long term good for immediate satisfaction is pretty common. Getting the discipline to wait for the long term gain is a thing we train kids to do, with varying degrees of success. I’m a sucker for wanting the nice shiny thing right now.
lodovic 6y ago
"Someone doing the work to find coins" - the flip side is "selfish with no moral compass". Historians won't have reliable sources anymore, parts of sites will be missing, this is such a waste. But hey someone made a few bucks.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  Or alternatively, nobody will find those coins and we won't even know they existed.
  - boxed 6y ago
    We know the coins exists. Duh. The coins existing has no value except to criminals. The actual value is the total context of the site which has huge value to archeologists. Archeology is also progressing so the later something is excavated the more we learn. So just destroying stuff like this guy did robs us all of tons of data.
skwirl 6y ago
This is an interesting topic because it's not something I would have thought about as an American. You aren't likely to find an artifact of much archeological value in much of the United States using a metal detector. Maybe if you could we would take the same stance as Europe on the issue.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  Doesn’t the US have similar laws preventing the collection of Native American artifacts, though? They just didn’t use much metal.
nsajko 6y ago
The difference is not between potential good and immediate good, it is between common good and what's (supposedly) good for the looter.
tiagod 6y ago
> On the other hand, someone doing the work to find coins seems better than nobody doing that work and having them lay in the ground. Taking the coins from the ground isn't the important part, its the scientific analysis in context that provides insight into the place's history. A coin in itself doesn't tell much, a lot of the same were probably found before. It would be better for the sites to be explored properly later on. If it was a first come, first serve kind of thing, there wouldn't be anything left for future technology.
boxed 6y ago
There is no good at all here.

lostlogin 6y ago

> I wonder if there are more instances of this trade-off between potential good and immediate good. Trading off long term good for immediate satisfaction is pretty common. Getting the discipline to wait for the long term gain is a thing we train kids to do, with varying degrees of success. I’m a sucker for wanting the nice shiny thing right now.

lodovic 6y ago

"Someone doing the work to find coins" - the flip side is "selfish with no moral compass". Historians won't have reliable sources anymore, parts of sites will be missing, this is such a waste. But hey someone made a few bucks.

Mirioron 6y ago
Or alternatively, nobody will find those coins and we won't even know they existed.
- boxed 6y ago
  We know the coins exists. Duh. The coins existing has no value except to criminals. The actual value is the total context of the site which has huge value to archeologists. Archeology is also progressing so the later something is excavated the more we learn. So just destroying stuff like this guy did robs us all of tons of data.

skwirl 6y ago

This is an interesting topic because it's not something I would have thought about as an American. You aren't likely to find an artifact of much archeological value in much of the United States using a metal detector. Maybe if you could we would take the same stance as Europe on the issue.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
Doesn’t the US have similar laws preventing the collection of Native American artifacts, though? They just didn’t use much metal.

nsajko 6y ago

The difference is not between potential good and immediate good, it is between common good and what's (supposedly) good for the looter.

tiagod 6y ago

> On the other hand, someone doing the work to find coins seems better than nobody doing that work and having them lay in the ground. Taking the coins from the ground isn't the important part, its the scientific analysis in context that provides insight into the place's history. A coin in itself doesn't tell much, a lot of the same were probably found before. It would be better for the sites to be explored properly later on. If it was a first come, first serve kind of thing, there wouldn't be anything left for future technology.

boxed 6y ago

There is no good at all here.