They could care about being left with something that is qualitatively worse than what burned down during our time because people chose to cut corners.
Now, does using a powersaw instead of a handsaw produce qualitatively worse results? I have no idea. I know nothing about woodworking. And I’ve certainly never worked on restoring or rebuilding any kind of monument. Let alone a centuries old one.
Perhaps they consider it to be important to set what they see as the proper mindset? Perhaps it’s just for show? Or to tell them themselves they did it the best they could? Perhaps there is an objective technical justification?
How could I know? The closest I’ve ever come to cutting wood was using some hydraulic wedge thing at the back of a tractor.
So I’m not arguing and will not be arguing about the specifics of their choices in tools and techniques. That’d be vain and pointless, and I could not argue in good faith.
Which is fine, because the technique is not my point.
My point sole is that, despite it being a building, there can still be an ethical imperative.
