If we’re longtermists about cultural heritage, and don’t think a particular age is better than others, or at least that preserving the ruins of any one age has rapidly diminishing importance, it’s not clear that we should support heritage laws to the exclusion of new construction. Consider the example of Paris in the 19th century. If it weren’t for NIMBYS losing, we wouldn’t get the nice wide avenues of the period. The constant rate of loss of old monuments may complicate things
See LRU caching for how you might optimise it.
How does this resemble the value of listening to elders varying with the rate of cultural change/heavy tailedness of events? Also explore exploit I guess Algorithms to live by notes. See other Heinrich notes.
Evicting for the past, evicting for the present. How does evicting for the three gorges dam compare to kicking villagers off archeological sites in Luxor.
(belongs somewhere else or should be deleted): How do you make the logic of original inhabitants rights more consistent. We don’t think it justifies strong claims in e.g. Lithuania, but we want to say it does in places that have been colonised like Australia and the US. What asymmetries can we appeal to get this result?