Exactly, does getting designated a world heritage site mean getting UN funding to preserve it and make up the opportunity cost of not selling it? If not, it's just wealthier countries patting themselves on the back for being such good custodians of world heritage while pushing the actual unseen costs onto the economically impoverished.
If someone actually cares enough about the site, raise the money to buy it up and preserve it however you like.
> A listed site gains international recognition and legal protection, and can obtain funds from among others the World Heritage Fund to facilitate its conservation under certain conditions.
It’s similar criticism to the ideas about removing the Amazon from Brazil’s control, which, for better or worse, pulls up the ladder before they’ve finished climbing in the interest of humanity.
These arguments typically come from the hearts of post industrial societies that have already exploited their resources, cultural, environmental, and otherwise, leaving them in the aftermath with only token conservation efforts in their regions and essentially no skin in the game elsewhere.
That’s an interesting take. Usually the argument is over how much benefit actually comes from living in certain societies, not the concept of living in one.
If someone actually cares enough about the site, raise the money to buy it up and preserve it however you like.