Notre Dame on fire

fretmeister

Snap said:

fretmeister said:

I'm annoyed that 3 French billionaires have managed to find 600 million euros for this when they could have done something like feed the homeless for about a thousand years for the same price.

Yes, but that is their choice. They have given their money freely, for a cause they want to help. You can't force people to support things. Harsh, but IMO all part of free choice etc. You take that principle further and you could argue that people should only contribute to charities that "someone" deems worthy. Kind of defeats the point really, again IMO.

Had another thought on this - another reason I don't agree with you is that it could be argued that charity relieves an administration of some of the responsibility for fixing a social ill, like homelessness. As long as charities support and help, the burden on a government is lowered. Not that I am advocating withdrawing charity, just posing an argument.

I agree with all that.

And my point was that I'm annoyed - not that there should be a "rule" change. 

The Charity shouldn't fix state problems issue is one I'm very familiar with - legal aid work. Many legal aid lawyers earn so little they are themselves eligible for legal aid, but still do a huge amount of work pro-bono because otherwise people are unrepresented. If that stopped over night the system would completely collapse. 

Cirrus

darthed1981 said:

Of course absolutely that.

But nobody is saying they should be MADE to spend the money on the homeless and not Notre Dame.

People are lamenting that in a few hours they could find 600 million euros they didn't need, and so very few billionaires (with notable exceptions) ever use it for helping the poor and desperate.

The world's ills could be solved, or at least very much mitigated, relatively easily, but those with the means don't want to do it.

Simple stick Google and Apple's cash piles together, and you would have 250 billion dollars, far more than is needed to wipe out global starvation and provide everyone with clean water.

Google and Apple ON THEIR OWN could change the world, but they don't!

I do have sympathy for this, but... 


If Google and Apple put their $250 billion dollars together and spend it on wiping out global starvation and providing everyone with clean water, they'd have no money to operate their businesses and would go bankrupt.


So now they've eliminated global starvation and they're gone. But Poverty is a systemic problem of cultures, human nature, economic systems, poor governance etc, and we haven't changed that system. So poverty will return. Giving people a route out of poverty is about a lot more than spending money on them. It's about giving people an environment where they can succeed, and then equipping them with the skills and attitudes that let them.

And ironically, smartphones and internet access are part of that solution.

jonnyburgo

I'm just amazed at how any building in a city that smells like it's soaked in piss could catch fire in the first place. 

Simon_M

I lived in Paris for a while back in 2008/9. It’s an incredibly diverse city with people of all sorts represented. I lived in a particularly poverty stricken suburb but worked right in the centre of Paris. It’s a great city and in many ways not unlike London. 

Seeing Notre Dame damaged like this brought back a lot of memories and really knocked me back. I really hope it can be restored. 

Having said that, the discussion on billionaires finding a few hundred million in their back pocket to fix Notre Dame does make me wonder about priorities. Having lived there I am certain that money could be used better to help people living in poverty.

Free choice I suppose. Wouldn’t be my choice though.

darthed1981

Cirrus said:

darthed1981 said:

Of course absolutely that.

But nobody is saying they should be MADE to spend the money on the homeless and not Notre Dame.

People are lamenting that in a few hours they could find 600 million euros they didn't need, and so very few billionaires (with notable exceptions) ever use it for helping the poor and desperate.

The world's ills could be solved, or at least very much mitigated, relatively easily, but those with the means don't want to do it.

Simple stick Google and Apple's cash piles together, and you would have 250 billion dollars, far more than is needed to wipe out global starvation and provide everyone with clean water.

Google and Apple ON THEIR OWN could change the world, but they don't!

I do have sympathy for this, but... 


If Google and Apple put their $250 billion dollars together and spend it on wiping out global starvation and providing everyone with clean water, they'd have no money to operate their businesses and would go bankrupt.


So now they've eliminated global starvation and they're gone. But Poverty is a systemic problem of cultures, human nature, economic systems, poor governance etc, and we haven't changed that system. So poverty will return. Giving people a route out of poverty is about a lot more than spending money on them. It's about giving people an environment where they can succeed, and then equipping them with the skills and attitudes that let them.

And ironically, smartphones and internet access are part of that solution.

Well yes, but obviously in regard to your two points...

1.  They could get by with far, far smaller cash piles, I wasn't suggesting we shut down the corporations and give the money to the poor, they could all do more as we all know.  Besides, a world with no starvation and universal clean water, and no tech giants, doesn't sound THAT bad.

2.  Doing those other things also costs money, ultimately the money would need to be carefully competently used, but it still needs to be there, it exists and it is not made available, a failure of humanity, ultimately.

...and yes of course technology can help save us all.  I'm not anti-corporations and I'm an IT professional so I'm not anti-technology.  I'm pro humanity being a bit... better.

Cirrus

darthed1981 said:

...and yes of course technology can help save us all.  I'm not anti-corporations and I'm an IT professional so I'm not anti-technology.  I'm pro humanity being a bit... better.

You want to watch the whole world burn.

darthed1981

Cirrus said:

darthed1981 said:

...and yes of course technology can help save us all.  I'm not anti-corporations and I'm an IT professional so I'm not anti-technology.  I'm pro humanity being a bit... better.

You want to watch the whole world burn.

Such pretty, pretty fire

Snap

fretmeister said:

Snap said:

fretmeister said:

I'm annoyed that 3 French billionaires have managed to find 600 million euros for this when they could have done something like feed the homeless for about a thousand years for the same price.

Yes, but that is their choice. They have given their money freely, for a cause they want to help. You can't force people to support things. Harsh, but IMO all part of free choice etc. You take that principle further and you could argue that people should only contribute to charities that "someone" deems worthy. Kind of defeats the point really, again IMO.

Had another thought on this - another reason I don't agree with you is that it could be argued that charity relieves an administration of some of the responsibility for fixing a social ill, like homelessness. As long as charities support and help, the burden on a government is lowered. Not that I am advocating withdrawing charity, just posing an argument.

I agree with all that.

And my point was that I'm annoyed - not that there should be a "rule" change. 

The Charity shouldn't fix state problems issue is one I'm very familiar with - legal aid work. Many legal aid lawyers earn so little they are themselves eligible for legal aid, but still do a huge amount of work pro-bono because otherwise people are unrepresented. If that stopped over night the system would completely collapse. 

Yeah, I know. You raise an interesting argument, worth discussion. Could the world's ills be partly solved/assuaged by more philanthropy? Probably, maybe.

And yes, the contrast is stark: how overnight almost a billion euros can appear to rebuild something physical, as opposed to pouring it into say the homeless problem. A problem that I would argue is more important to a society, but that is only my opinion.

But, I think that solving social problems is the responsibility of all of us, spear headed by a government that represents us and has the infrastructure and ability to tackle it properly, for the duration, not just the emotive short haul.

Whilst I have massive respect for charities, and anyone who supports them, including pro bono work etc, I don't think its the answer. It probably makes the problem worse in the long term: it keeps problems (sort of) at arm's length from the powers that be. By helping out, a charity almost dulls down an issue, so it's not as sharp and in the face urgent where government is concerned.

One example that is at the forefront of my thinking here is cancer research. They do amazing work, and fund truly life saving developmental treatments and units. But it is simply appalling that this has to be funded by charity.

Why should a hospital need to become a registered charity to fund themselves? The more you think about that, the more disgusting it is.

the charity element of this is taking the problem away from those who should be paying for it- the government through our taxes.

/ranting yes, I know!!

strtdv

As has already been said most of the huge cost (I'd anticipate well over a billion euros) will go into local materials and skilled labour, which will generate/maintain jobs and benefit the wider economy. Keynesian economics in action.

Shame to see a nice old building burn, but provided it's restored well no reason it shouldn't stand for several hundred more years

strtdv

Also, regarding Google, Apple etc, these companies exist to make shareholders money, not effect positive change in the world

jacklawtey

jonnyburgo said:

I'm just amazed at how any building in a city that smells like it's soaked in piss could catch fire in the first place. 

Don't know where you've got that from. Smells like.. nothing most of the time. 

breakstuff

jacklawtey said:

jonnyburgo said:

I'm just amazed at how any building in a city that smells like it's soaked in piss could catch fire in the first place. 

Don't know where you've got that from. Smells like.. nothing most of the time. 

Last time I went, the Latin Quarter definitely had that unmistakable pong in the air, quite pungent in places. 

The rest was fine though. 

menamestom

The Catholic church is a massively wealthy organisation and could have easily funded the repairs themselves, so it does make you wonder why these billionaires rushed to donate so quickly.  I’m going to ponder this whilst wearing my new Notre Dame edition Gucci sliders. 

WiresDreamDisasters

menamestom said:

The Catholic church is a massively wealthy organisation and could have easily funded the repairs themselves, so it does make you wonder why these billionaires rushed to donate so quickly.  I’m going to ponder this whilst wearing my new Notre Dame edition Gucci sliders. 

It isn't owned by the church.

menamestom

WiresDreamDisasters said:

menamestom said:

The Catholic church is a massively wealthy organisation and could have easily funded the repairs themselves, so it does make you wonder why these billionaires rushed to donate so quickly.  I’m going to ponder this whilst wearing my new Notre Dame edition Gucci sliders. 

It isn't owned by the church.

They do hang out there from time to time though 

Jalapeno

On a few media outlets today - compare and contrast level of corporate Notre Dame donations with Grenfell Tower ......

jonnyburgo

jacklawtey said:

jonnyburgo said:

I'm just amazed at how any building in a city that smells like it's soaked in piss could catch fire in the first place. 

Don't know where you've got that from. Smells like.. nothing most of the time. 

I’ve been 6 times the last 2 in the height of Summer very pungent. There are virtually no free toilets there anymore which I’m sure contributes.

VimFuego

jonnyburgo said:

jacklawtey said:

jonnyburgo said:

I'm just amazed at how any building in a city that smells like it's soaked in piss could catch fire in the first place. 

Don't know where you've got that from. Smells like.. nothing most of the time. 

I’ve been 6 times the last 2 in the height of Summer very pungent. There are virtually no free toilets there anymore which I’m sure contributes.

sounds like they were taking the pissoir. 

darthed1981

jonnyburgo said:

jacklawtey said:

jonnyburgo said:

I'm just amazed at how any building in a city that smells like it's soaked in piss could catch fire in the first place. 

Don't know where you've got that from. Smells like.. nothing most of the time. 

I’ve been 6 times the last 2 in the height of Summer very pungent. There are virtually no free toilets there anymore which I’m sure contributes.

Where did you leave your shoes, and did you share your opinion of the city with anyone who may have had access to them?

Garthy

So in the balance of equality and doing the right thing who is selling all their gear and giving the proceeds to a charity or a beggar?


anyone ? 


No?

I wonder why that is.