Because the world doesn’t revolve around them. Just because you will never get to see the Sistine Chapel doesn’t mean you should be fine with it being burnt down.
Perhaps that could be your philosophy of the world. But indeed, me along with millions do want to broaden our understanding and experience of the world.
Else why even use phones and the internet to post here, unlike "back in the days of yonder".
From a purely pragmatic/selfish perspective, the more wondrous places that exist the greater the opportunity for me to see one, both from a "hey that's close to where I'll be" standpoint and "hey, the more tourists at the Sistine Chapel, the fewer at the Louvre".
But from a broader perspective, beauty in the world is worth cherishing. I regret the gradual destruction of both the coral reefs and Venice. I was saddened when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan, despite never expecting to see them, despite not even knowing they existed previously.
To me that seems a lot different than the scenario that the parent poster is presenting where the majority of people stay in their small town and never experience any of these things.
I can definitely get on board for the idea that humanity needs to work together to manage our cultural resources so that everyone can benefit. I can't get on board with the idea that the majority of people should live empty lives in order to preserve things for a lucky few.
Whether we like it or not, tourist attractions do not scale. Everyone isn’t going to get their 15 minutes with the Sistine chapel. Some won’t even get more than a few minutes if at all.
I get what you are saying, but you aren't explaining what your solution is.
It sounds like you are advocating returning to a model where the peasants toil away in obscurity to that the aristocracy can enjoy art, travel, etc. However, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that's not actually what you are advocating.
