I guess it boils down to the question: Would you give your own life to save the artworks of Notre Dame?

It's a pretty personal question. I admire the archaeologist you described, but I believe no one should feel obligated to do the same thing.

Engaging in an activity with greater risk of killing you than usual is not the same as "giving one's life". These guys already fight fires for their day job. One more little bit of exposure to increased risk doesn't change the overall odds that much.

Indeed. I just thought of a better version for that question:

How much risk would you be willing to take to save the artworks of Notre Dame?

If there's even a small but significant risk to one's life then nobody should feel obligated to do it.

If a friend of yours called you and said "Hey, can you come pick up this painting I love before my house gets demolished?" would you drive over to pick it up?

Everyone in this thread is focused on whether or not the firefighters think the risk is worth it to save artwork. You're overlooking the fact that the sort of person who signs up to fight fires gets a rush out of being in a burning building in the first place. Saving the art is just a bonus...

I wouldn’t. And Paris shouldn’t hire me to be a firefighter.

"Art and culture connects us to the people came before us."

I think that's the best explanation I've ever heard for why art and culture are so important.

Humans are a species of coral that over generations builds massive architectures of culture, science, math and art.

But it’s not the whole story. If we had no connection to the past, it would feel like there’s no way to ever have a connection to the future, and thus it would feel pointless to do anything that is not entirely contained within your life time. Humanity would then become a very short term thinking species, and no great work or progress would ever be done.

While true, one should keep in mind that preservation is ultimately a futile endeavor. Nothing last forever. And yes, obviously that statement also applies to human life, but I'm certainly not going to judge anyone for refusing to endanger themselves for a painting.

PS: I had no idea it was so controversial to forgive people for not risking their lives for an inanimate object.

"Nothing lasts forever" is technically true, but I'm sure I don't need to point out how useless this statement is when it comes to making decisions. In situations like this fire, responders need to balance their own assessment of personal risk against the value of saving a given inanimate object.

Some people will categorically shy away from any perceived risk to their own safety, even if the estimated chance of saving a valuable object is very high. At the other extreme, some people would endure suffering and death to save what they recognize as priceless artifacts of history and culture.

I think many people interpret your comment as devaluing the choice that some people make to take such risks.

If your argument is that we shouldn't criticize people for choosing not risk their for inanimate objects, can you point to such criticism in this thread? I haven't seen any.

I can see how my comment could be read that way, because it's kinda what I'm saying. The parent comment heavily implies that preserving culture, via the physical existence of artistic works, is worth more than a human life because it is just oh-so-important. If you really think your life is worth sacrificing to save these artifacts, well, I disagree. What they represent doesn't go away just because they do.