That is a common attitude. Consider also that “worth” is relative. I’d burn the Mona Lisa for heat to keep my family alive, but that doesn’t mean it has no worth.
The writer & engraver William Blake, one of the most influential artists of the last few centuries, was so poor that he had to melt down his copper printing plates once he’d used them. He couldn’t afford to buy more copper. Blake’s technique was unique in all of printing, and a little insane, and fantastically detailed. Having all his original plates would be glorious.
So was it that those plates were worth nothing? Not at all. He had to feed his family.
And note that no one — no one at all — is arguing to “remember every single pointless thing.” That’s a straw man. You’ll have better discussions if you avoid such things.
Imagine that Mona Lisa was lost shortly after its creation ... do you think we would not have something else like Mona Lisa in its place?
Society created the value of Mona Lisa out of nothing. It is not such a unique thing - there are tens of thousands of paintings that could be just as valuable.
OK and saving a bunch of film reels or tens of thousands of Mona Lisas takes a tiny amount of space in a salt mine warehouse or some megabytes or gigabytes taking literally zero space. It's not a zero-sum game where disposing of this stuff makes more room for future artists.
Lots of things have been lost because people didn't consider them worth paper.
What is important ends up being very strange. Ephemera become _very_ important.
For example, how did women care for their hair during Victorian times? Did they wash their hair? What with? Lye soap is really strong, and they didn't have detergent based shampoos.
So, what did they use?
That example came to mind because it was the focus of one of the "live a while in the shoes of someone from time X" on TV. It was a huge thing for the women of the house to be able to care for their hair, and no one knew how it was done!
What we consider useless to keep now may become extremely important to a future historian.
Some of the most valuable finds in terms of learning about past societies have been very ordinary things: the everyday objects that we make, use, and keep says so much about us that doesn't get put into official records.
Archival isn't just for entertainment. It's for research, for history, and for remembering and understanding where we've come from.
There's a line in an old Time Team episode about how Phil Harding [I think] had found one of the most exciting things an archaeologist could find: [Totally deadpan] "A ditch."
Indeed, the things that make good historical evidence are very frequently rather counter-intuitive.
how about the current era, where every human generates thousands of photos per year ... is that a history worth remembering and will it help where we've come from?
I am not saying to not study history, I am saying storing everything is probably worse than storing half of it.
Aside from the pictures of the insides of purses or completely blurry and incomprehensible ones, yeah, it's worth remembering, and it will help understand where we've come from if we can preserve it for the next few centuries. Especially since so much of it is time- and geo-tagged. That kind of dataset is an absolute gold mine for people studying history.
Seriously, talk to some people whose field this is, or at least look up some things by or about them.
The writer & engraver William Blake, one of the most influential artists of the last few centuries, was so poor that he had to melt down his copper printing plates once he’d used them. He couldn’t afford to buy more copper. Blake’s technique was unique in all of printing, and a little insane, and fantastically detailed. Having all his original plates would be glorious.
So was it that those plates were worth nothing? Not at all. He had to feed his family.
And note that no one — no one at all — is arguing to “remember every single pointless thing.” That’s a straw man. You’ll have better discussions if you avoid such things.