You may have seen the list of donors thus far, and gone through the names and seen whatever other philanthropy they've done to confirm they haven't actually helped impoverished or war-torn countries. I haven't seen a list, nor have I checked to see to what else they've donated, so I can't really speak to that part of the question.
However, if there's a judgment call being made between helping to rebuild the cathedral at Notre Dame or using that same money somewhere else, I guess to that I can only say that people will donate to what they they will, and it's their right and choice to do so.
I have not been to the cathedral, though there are plenty on STEEM who have, and for them, it was devastating to see the cathedral burn. An 850-plus year old building can have that kind of effect on people, especially when it has significant ties to a religion.
And of course, there were an assortment of things inside the cathedral that if damaged are irreplaceable.
For the Paris economy, Notre Dame was one of the most highly visited tourist attractions. It's loss has yet to be measured in economic dollars, especially for that specific area. So, there's at least religious and economic issues being addressed here, along with national sentiment, I suspect.
Given the fact that there is some speculation that the fire was not accidental, but potentially purposeful, I think that makes this particular incident that much more front and center in the minds of millions, not just in France, but around Europe, if not the world. As far as I know, there has yet to be a full report as to the cause (which so far has been officially called or described as accidental), so it's premature to call it anything, but that doesn't stop people from drawing conclusions, or acting in the way they see as best.
Which, for those who have the money and will to do so, means donating large sums of money for Notre Dame's reconstruction.
Life certainly can be challenging at 70-plus, just like it can be at any age. Depending on how we are able to form familial ties and keep them, provide financial stability, maintain an acceptable level of health, energy, freedom from physical pain, mental acuity, etc. All of those things become more and more significant as time goes by.
However, depending upon the age one is, there's time to prepare for aging, and the sooner this preparation can begin, the easier it will be to realize and have when needed.
The question presupposes that those who are around now but won't be at age 70 are parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, older siblings, perhaps, and maybe cousins. It also presupposes, that there won't be new blood relations or family formed, such as a spouse, children, grandchildren, and so forth.
While the former will most likely be the case—parents and older generations tend to be gone by the time their children and grandchildren get into their 70s—the possibility of having a family, unless it's not possible due to some medical reason (and even then, there's the potential for adoption—not blood related, but still family), is there. Descendants can be a source of strength as we age, and I would hope that there would be an opportunity there.
Aging is an ongoing issue for many, and yes, there are those who end up alone. There are others who have posterity that also left alone mostly. So, having a family isn't a guarantee, but there are things that can be done to better prepare for the day when help is needed.
Places such as a care facility or community are available. I would hope they would be last resort. There's much more that can be done before such an eventuality to ensure we're not alone in our old age.
View this question on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
Thanks for clearing confusions.
View this answer on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io
You may have seen the list of donors thus far, and gone through the names and seen whatever other philanthropy they've done to confirm they haven't actually helped impoverished or war-torn countries. I haven't seen a list, nor have I checked to see to what else they've donated, so I can't really speak to that part of the question.
However, if there's a judgment call being made between helping to rebuild the cathedral at Notre Dame or using that same money somewhere else, I guess to that I can only say that people will donate to what they they will, and it's their right and choice to do so.
I have not been to the cathedral, though there are plenty on STEEM who have, and for them, it was devastating to see the cathedral burn. An 850-plus year old building can have that kind of effect on people, especially when it has significant ties to a religion.
And of course, there were an assortment of things inside the cathedral that if damaged are irreplaceable.
For the Paris economy, Notre Dame was one of the most highly visited tourist attractions. It's loss has yet to be measured in economic dollars, especially for that specific area. So, there's at least religious and economic issues being addressed here, along with national sentiment, I suspect.
Given the fact that there is some speculation that the fire was not accidental, but potentially purposeful, I think that makes this particular incident that much more front and center in the minds of millions, not just in France, but around Europe, if not the world. As far as I know, there has yet to be a full report as to the cause (which so far has been officially called or described as accidental), so it's premature to call it anything, but that doesn't stop people from drawing conclusions, or acting in the way they see as best.
Which, for those who have the money and will to do so, means donating large sums of money for Notre Dame's reconstruction.
View this question on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io
Life certainly can be challenging at 70-plus, just like it can be at any age. Depending on how we are able to form familial ties and keep them, provide financial stability, maintain an acceptable level of health, energy, freedom from physical pain, mental acuity, etc. All of those things become more and more significant as time goes by.
However, depending upon the age one is, there's time to prepare for aging, and the sooner this preparation can begin, the easier it will be to realize and have when needed.
The question presupposes that those who are around now but won't be at age 70 are parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, older siblings, perhaps, and maybe cousins. It also presupposes, that there won't be new blood relations or family formed, such as a spouse, children, grandchildren, and so forth.
While the former will most likely be the case—parents and older generations tend to be gone by the time their children and grandchildren get into their 70s—the possibility of having a family, unless it's not possible due to some medical reason (and even then, there's the potential for adoption—not blood related, but still family), is there. Descendants can be a source of strength as we age, and I would hope that there would be an opportunity there.
Aging is an ongoing issue for many, and yes, there are those who end up alone. There are others who have posterity that also left alone mostly. So, having a family isn't a guarantee, but there are things that can be done to better prepare for the day when help is needed.
Places such as a care facility or community are available. I would hope they would be last resort. There's much more that can be done before such an eventuality to ensure we're not alone in our old age.
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io