The Independent Website That Asks The Awkward Questions
In perpetuity
The change of wording is mildly perplexing, given that the more recent conservation plans state that:
“In perpetuity is a difficult concept and should perhaps be interpreted as ‘for as long as is humanly possible using the best techniques available at any time’.” (Cape Evans Conservation Plan, 2004 p9)
At a recent presentation in London (2006) on the work of the conservation of artefacts, the conservationist concerned stated that for many of the artefacts in the historic huts the maximum life expectancy would be 50 years.
“In perpetuity” therefore seems to equate to 50 years, or less than a human lifespan; so hardly a definition within the normal perameters of the word.
We must therefore ask: is it justifiable to invest millions of dollars into the sites for such a short extended life-span?
“In perpetuity is a difficult concept and should perhaps be interpreted as ‘for as long as is humanly possible using the best techniques available at any time’.” (Cape Evans Conservation Plan, 2004 p9)
At a recent presentation in London (2006) on the work of the conservation of artefacts, the conservationist concerned stated that for many of the artefacts in the historic huts the maximum life expectancy would be 50 years.
“In perpetuity” therefore seems to equate to 50 years, or less than a human lifespan; so hardly a definition within the normal perameters of the word.
We must therefore ask: is it justifiable to invest millions of dollars into the sites for such a short extended life-span?