3 ms·
"NEED" is somewhat loaded and subjective. We only "need" just enough space to have shelter from the elements. Things like most appliances, toilets and so forth
by sidlls 9y ago
"NEED" is somewhat loaded and subjective. We only "need" just enough space to have shelter from the elements. Things like most appliances, toilets and so forth are optional and can just as easily be provided communally (and were for literally centuries in many places).
Why should "what is needed" be higher in priority than a slightly more spacey/comfortable/whatever standard? There's a spectrum between living one step removed from hunter-gatherers sheltering in caves and Middle Class McMansions. It's certainly not clear to me that moving as far as 600 square feet for a two bedroom is necessary, even when it seems that certainly more high density housing is.
- Noos 9y agoThere's this odd tendency to glorify being powerless or under the thumb of others on this site. If you don't own your appliances, you are at the mercy of someone else. If the microwave in the shared kitchen is busted, you need to wait for the landlord to fix it; meanwhile hope you like eating out. If you have a shared refrigerator, you are at the mercy of other people not eating your food. If toilets, keeping them clean. The reason why we need this space and own these things is to be able to have control over our own experience. I own a book because I don't want to have to depend on the library having it in stock when I need it. I have a bathroom so I can use it when I wan't, not have to wait for twenty minutes because someone else is being sick in it, cleaning it up, or because there is a long line for the morning shower.
- sidlls 9y agoI don't know if I'd go that far. I think it's less malicious, and has a better analogy with the way people would rather take from someone else than work to improve both their lots. We see that all the time in American politics: poor people railing against government job benefits because "why should they have it so good?" instead of asking themselves why their employers, who are generally much wealthier than the government, can't provide similar benefits. Same thing here. I don't see why we have to diminish our living space to the standard of Europe (for example). We have more land, first of all. Second of all, restricted land area isn't the only reason for Europe's relatively smaller dwelling sizes: they have their own class problems and NIMBY problems.