3 ms·

It seems like you're creating a scale of things you believe everyone ought to have and calling it "needs". If you're defining need in such a subjective way, the

by strken 5y ago

It seems like you're creating a scale of things you believe everyone ought to have and calling it "needs". If you're defining need in such a subjective way, then telling someone else to divide their life up by what they need vs what they want is telling them to live their life with only the luxuries they're unwilling to compromise on. That's a great way to live and I approve of it, but I remain steadfastly convinced that it's good for humans to have some unnecessary luxuries.

onion2k 5y ago
I remain steadfastly convinced that it's good for humans to have some unnecessary luxuries. It'd be amazing if everyone had things they don't need. I'd love to live in a world where everyone had what they need and more. That's a no brainer. The problem is that you're saying "the luxuries they're unwilling to compromise on" should be considered needs because some entitled rich idiot isn't able to accept that they could actually live with just one kitchen. That's stupid. They're still luxuries, and absolutely not equivalent to actual needs. Needs and wants are not the same things. Arguing that they are, and that they're just two things on a scale of wants, or that they're two things on a scale of needs, ignores that there are things people actually need and things that people can live without. I'm not arguing that rekabis shouldn't have their second kitchen. I'm only saying that they could live without it, and that they would probably give it up before giving up the privacy of their bedroom. Maybe that's wrong. Perhaps they could put a bed in it and sleep there. I don't know.
- strken 5y ago
  All of those things I listed are things I've either done, or that someone I know has done. Arguing that you need windows or a private room is ridiculous. You do not need them, though they're a reasonable want that nearly everyone has. Not having a private room to sleep in didn't kill me, it doesn't kill the billions of people who do it, and it wouldn't kill you. The broader point here is that whittling away everything nice about your life to be "economically efficient" (as per the original comment I replied to) is a terrible idea unless you've got no alternative. People should have nice things, like windows and kitchens, and they should have better reasons than economic efficiency for giving them up. I don't think you or I disagree on this.
  - onion2k 5y ago
    Needs are things that people need in order to live with dignity and respect; they are not simply "things you'd die if you didn't have."
    - xboxnolifes 5y ago
      You don't need dignity or respect to live.
      - onion2k 5y ago
        You should learn what it means to live. It's more than simply "being alive".
        jjav 5y ago
        > You should learn what it means to live. It's more than simply "being alive". This goes full circle to what you were arguing against earlier. It is indeed true that humans always strive for more than minimal subsistence and this is part of living. Thus it is not illogical to have things which go beyond the bare minimum to survive. They're technically "wants", but that's what it means to live.
        onion2k 5y ago
        My argument here is that people have needs that are more than things that are "the absolute minimum necessary for you to not die" in order to live a decent human life with dignity, but that don't extend as far as "a second kitchen". That isn't hard to understand. Everyone posting to say "but if you accept that needs are more than air and water then you must be saying a home-based cannery is essential for the human condition!" are just being idiots.

by strken 5y ago

onion2k 5y ago

I remain steadfastly convinced that it's good for humans to have some unnecessary luxuries. It'd be amazing if everyone had things they don't need. I'd love to live in a world where everyone had what they need and more. That's a no brainer. The problem is that you're saying "the luxuries they're unwilling to compromise on" should be considered needs because some entitled rich idiot isn't able to accept that they could actually live with just one kitchen. That's stupid. They're still luxuries, and absolutely not equivalent to actual needs. Needs and wants are not the same things. Arguing that they are, and that they're just two things on a scale of wants, or that they're two things on a scale of needs, ignores that there are things people actually need and things that people can live without. I'm not arguing that rekabis shouldn't have their second kitchen. I'm only saying that they could live without it, and that they would probably give it up before giving up the privacy of their bedroom. Maybe that's wrong. Perhaps they could put a bed in it and sleep there. I don't know.

strken 5y ago
All of those things I listed are things I've either done, or that someone I know has done. Arguing that you need windows or a private room is ridiculous. You do not need them, though they're a reasonable want that nearly everyone has. Not having a private room to sleep in didn't kill me, it doesn't kill the billions of people who do it, and it wouldn't kill you. The broader point here is that whittling away everything nice about your life to be "economically efficient" (as per the original comment I replied to) is a terrible idea unless you've got no alternative. People should have nice things, like windows and kitchens, and they should have better reasons than economic efficiency for giving them up. I don't think you or I disagree on this.
- onion2k 5y ago
  Needs are things that people need in order to live with dignity and respect; they are not simply "things you'd die if you didn't have."
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    You don't need dignity or respect to live.
    - onion2k 5y ago
      You should learn what it means to live. It's more than simply "being alive".
      - jjav 5y ago
        > You should learn what it means to live. It's more than simply "being alive". This goes full circle to what you were arguing against earlier. It is indeed true that humans always strive for more than minimal subsistence and this is part of living. Thus it is not illogical to have things which go beyond the bare minimum to survive. They're technically "wants", but that's what it means to live.
        onion2k 5y ago
        My argument here is that people have needs that are more than things that are "the absolute minimum necessary for you to not die" in order to live a decent human life with dignity, but that don't extend as far as "a second kitchen". That isn't hard to understand. Everyone posting to say "but if you accept that needs are more than air and water then you must be saying a home-based cannery is essential for the human condition!" are just being idiots.