> We do not get to decide what the future finds interesting.
That's factually wrong. If you decide to utterly obliterate something, the future can't find it interesting.
> Therefore, we must preserve as much as we possibly can so that those in the future have the ability to pick and choose. As it stands now, a lot of human history is just pieced together from trash and rubble.
That's a value judgement that will eventually succumb to its own contradictions. Preserving stuff, especially preserving "as much as we possibly can" is a luxury that many ages can't afford. It's all going to end up as "trash and rubble" eventually.
If you want make something to survive for the long term, make trash and rubble.
>> That's factually wrong. If you decide to utterly obliterate something, the future can't find it interesting.
> Object X may be deleted but did you make sure all references to X were deleted as well?
IMHO, something with references to it isn't utterly obliterated. But there are a lot of things with little-to-no references to them, and those are things someone can totally decide to make the future uninterested in.
That's factually wrong. If you decide to utterly obliterate something, the future can't find it interesting.
> Therefore, we must preserve as much as we possibly can so that those in the future have the ability to pick and choose. As it stands now, a lot of human history is just pieced together from trash and rubble.
That's a value judgement that will eventually succumb to its own contradictions. Preserving stuff, especially preserving "as much as we possibly can" is a luxury that many ages can't afford. It's all going to end up as "trash and rubble" eventually.
If you want make something to survive for the long term, make trash and rubble.