> We should focus on what people really need to live quality lives, which is... Which is what maybe ~1% of the most wealthy and lucky of human population curre

> We should focus on what people really need to live quality lives, which is... Which is what maybe ~1% of the most wealthy and lucky of human population currently get, some of the time. > and then the rest of Maslow's hierarchy. Oh wow, I like Maslow's "hierarchy". Although satisfaction of the human needs laid out there defy "provision", they are to be earned and achieved by the person. > Cars, TV, home appliances, and the whole lot of today's energy-hungry living isn't sustainable, and I'd argue isn't even the thing we should be shooting for. The very things which people invented, and are willing to pay for, to further themselves in the satisfaction of their needs. Which needs are laid out in Maslow's theory of motivation. I presume you do realise this. Could you please explain how do you resolve this conflict? A. Provision every human being with complete satisfaction of entire set of needs (bodily, security, society, esteem, knowledge, beauty, self-actualization and transcendence). B. Take away from people, and punish them for having devices which are universally known to affordably address specific and provably existing human needs. How do you propose to do A (at all), and then insist on B? Am I right that you are a communist? Would you like to have a chance to live in the USSR?