I've been mulling over the whole world heritage site concept, and really...while admirable as an anchor to counterbalance the inexorable march of progress, I wonder just how sustainable such a concept can be. For example, site A is preserved because it is worthy of conservation. Eventually B, C, D and so on get selected. It stands to reason that increasing tracts of land will be frozen from redevelopment in order to preserve the integrity of the sites.
The question, then, is whether there will come a point where heritage sites take up such a significant proportion of valuable landmass that their heritage status will have to be revoked. It seems to be the case, seeing as how heritage sites that were manmade tend to be on plots of land that are in some way useful to humans. It therefore stands to reason that some people will invariably desire it for their use at some point.
Of course, the flip side is the sustainability of cultural and natural heritage. If things of natural beauty and human cultural heritage were to be swept away in the tide of progress, how then will there be anything left for the descendants? This is one balance I am glad I do not have to administer, because I do not have the answer to it at this point.
No comments:
Post a Comment