A choice in history

In a book ( agatha christie, if u will) one of the characters ask another " so you would be ok with no monuments ( they were in Egypt, i believe) if you could know people were well fed", the condescension obvious. That makes me think. would you be ok with giving up all the historical monuments of the world in return for the better lives of people of that time. For example, would you rather not have the pyramids and ensure that people who must have died or seriously injured were safer. ( i dont know the facts but just imagining the task makes me sure there would have been enormous casualties) Closer home, would you give up the Taj Mahal if that meant that few centuries ago, thousands would not have lost their eyes or limbs. thats the question!! ofcourse one could argue that if there had been no Taj, we wouldnt know what we are missing, so it wont matter. but now that you have known and seen it, would you? there are many ways of looking at this.. historian's way, architect's way, tourism promoter way.. and then regular person's way. It can be a hard decision, it can be simple. Imagine a current situation.. would you risk people's lives, limbs so that you could build a structure which may possibly be one of the magnificent creations? If your answer is yes, the words to define you wouldnt be hard to find... i'll stick to cruel. If your answer is no, shouldnt this answer be the same for past? Ok, so you say you are ready to give up the Pyramids and Taj ( using them as samples) but can you say it without regret, without a thought to what you would lose?


Torture, risk, loss may make the decision simpler. But what if instead of the fantastic structures, you had the assurance that few centuries ago people were well fed, not stricken with extreme poverty. That instead of spending atrocious amounts of money to build ego-massaging things, money was spent on food, shelter, clothing, health care...Would you still give them up? But then again, economics tells you, that public expenditure can do more to reduce poverty than free-handouts. Ofcourse it would be better to spend it on infrastructures which apart from providing jobs to people thereby injecting money in their hands starts a process of economic development, would also mean that end product again helps the country. But then tourism forms an important part too. again, i have no facts but the petronas towers and now probably the Taipei tower would be attracting tourists, helping the economy.

So i am confused about the second part. Lets personalise it a bit more (of course we are all self-centred). Would i give up car, AC, vacations etc to give money to the needy, charity? and that makes it hard... because whatever i say, i know deep inside ( actually not even that deep inside) that i cant voluntarily give these up just for others.
But about the first part, i can say - give them up. Its not that i am not into history and historical structures.. though not a complete history or architect buff, i love to see all these... but the price is high. if given a choice, i wouldnt believe it to be worth it. yet, that doesnt make me avoid these. No point in that. The beautiful structures are there to be admired albeit they were built at a huge price. i may be a hypocrite, but thats how i feel.
I dont know what you would say, but either way, never ask the question with condescension!!