Didn't have time to finish earlier, but I have to say that I'm in disagreement with you on the specific subject of the Elgin Marbles. I grew up in Athens and have several friends whose extremely strong feelings on the subject has seeped into me.

You're right when you say that the air pollution in Athens would have done terrible damage to the Marbles had they remained in situ. And that would have been a terrible tragedy. But once you start using that as a justification for looting and vandalism...? Well, where does it end?

The road-building projects that threaten to disturb the landscapes around Tara, in Ireland and Stone Henge, in England... do they qualify for a similar rescue plan and if an American business-man arrived one day and forcefully removed the stones from Stone Henge and shipped them to his private wilderness reserve for display to paying visitors; all against the express wishes of the local people? Would he be justified?

Does that line of reasoning not lead to a situation where anyone can justify cultural looting by claiming they intend to preserve the item(s) in a better condition than the locals are capable?

And that's without getting into the specific circumstances of the Elgin Marbles... bought by an Englishman from the occupying army... that's about as insulting a form of looting as there is! Like that hypothetical American businessman buying Stone Henge from a French occupying force. Imagine watching your enemy... your occupier... selling off your cultural heritage to rich foreigners. And then imagine the rich foreigners sneer at your repeated requests for its return under the pretext that "you're not careful enough with your own heritage".

Is it not better that we risk losing even beautiful things, rather than accept that kind of steal-by-force approach to conservation?