11–20 of 28 posts
Plus climate change general impacts
This is very well laid out and beautiful, but I generally don’t come to nature for that type of article. So while it was engaging to stay along with, it did take a while to get to the point.
Reminds me of the Chauvet Cave in France, which also holds cave-painting, where the large number of visitors changed the atmosphere of the cave, causing mold and damaging the paintings. To preserve it a replica cave ended up being built for tourism, with the original being closed off except for scientific excursions
Learning more about cavemen from paintings that have been studied for decades is not going to enable scientific discoveries that will advance humanity, it will not change anything to the present or the future of humanity. It literally serves no purpose other than to tell stories of a past so distant it does not hold lessons that are important for the future.
So what is left beside just the enjoyment of the public? What is the point of preserving those paintings by forbidding anyone from ever seeing them?
We have thousands of pictures of those paintings, gatekeeping their access to a handful of scientists is no different than letting them disappear entirely.
Oldest art that we know of. I bet a lot of other art from that era and before has already been destroyed. We should just count it lucky that we've found and documented any of these things.
Reminds me of the Chauvet Cave in France, which also holds cave-painting, where the large number of visitors changed the atmosphere of the cave, causing mold and damaging the paintings. To preserve it a replica cave ended up being built for tourism, with the original being closed off except for scientific excursions
I have a controversial opinion on that, but I seriously don't see the point of locking areas out of the public just to preserve them. Learning more about cavemen from paintings that have been studied for decades is not going to enable scientific discoveries that will advance humanity, it will not change anything to the present or the future of humanity. It literally serves no purpose other than to tell stories of a p…
Oldest art that we know of. I bet a lot of other art from that era and before has already been destroyed. We should just count it lucky that we've found and documented any of these things.
Isn't that just understood? If I say my grandfather is my oldest relative, nobody is like "oldest LIVING relative"
You might think so, but no, very few people understand this. People are constantly being shocked when a technology that is obviously highly developed in one archaeological period turns out to have precursors in earlier periods.
You might also compare the common claim that one human language is older or younger than another one. With a few obvious exceptions, this claim is gibberish, but that doesn't stop people from making the claim or believing that it means something. It's that tendency to believe things despite the fact that half a second of thought would be sufficient to disprove them that causes trouble here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a controversial opinion on that, but I seriously don't see the point of locking areas out of the public just to preserve them. Learning more about cavemen from paintings that have been studied for decades is not going to enable scientific discoveries that will advance humanity, it will not change anything to the present or the future of humanity. It literally serves no purpose other than to tell stories of a p…
Photos only show what camera/film of the time could capture (in some lighting condition), not everything that every possible test could. Just how certain are you that there will never be a technique or technology discovered that would reveal information prior studies didn't?
At some point the past has nothing to teach anymore.
It's talking about cave paintings, just in case you don't want to click on the clickbait.