3 ms·
Likely yes, but if you reversed the incentives (say, paying a bounty or declaring a free-for-all, even more sites would be destroyed.)
by actionfromafar 2y ago
Likely yes, but if you reversed the incentives (say, paying a bounty or declaring a free-for-all, even more sites would be destroyed.)
- lukan 2y ago"even more sites would be destroyed" Why? If you make a law, that people get a finders fee if they find something of historic value, only if they stop digging after finding it, but get a fine if they do destroy the site, how would that make more destruction? Harder is it for homeowners, because real compensation there costs real money - but how else would you compensate people for individual loss, for the common benefit (research)?
- actionfromafar 2y agoI'm thinking, more people could go "hunting" that way.
- lukan 2y agoAnd if they do so in a controlled, legal setting, where they cooperate with proper scientists, wouldn't that be way better?
- altairprime 2y agoNot if it compels them to hold their land fallow for an indeterminate months or years, in exchange for a one-time payment (or none at all). I’m all for proper archaeology but I can’t expect those who are trying to use their land to prioritize it unpaid. I don’t expect their government offers enough social support and compensation for the lost time to make it worth the risk and annoyance.