5 ms·
> Water being a human right Human need ≠ human right. By definition, a limited resource cannot be a natural right.
by Georgelemental 3y ago
> Water being a human right
Human need ≠ human right. By definition, a limited resource cannot be a natural right.
- dietr1ch 3y agoSo how's the argument that water is technically limited is enough to start selling it for corporate profit?
- Georgelemental 3y agoIn fact, I don't think corporations should be able to exploit a commons (like a stream) for profit without compensating the community.
- Aerroon 3y agoThey do compensate the community. First, they make goods available: bottled water. Second, they buy the land and/or water rights to use them.
- FireBeyond 3y ago> water rights to use them There's some rather sweetheart deals at play there. In some places, those water rights cost as little as a single digit number of dollars per million gallons.
- parineum 3y agoWater isn't limited.
- Georgelemental 3y agoFreshwater is limited, the energy and infrastructure to desalinate and transport saltwater are limited.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Human need ≠ human right. By definition, a limited resource cannot be a natural right. Rights aren’t natural, that’s a quasi-religious fiction invoked as a thought-terminating cliché to avoid debate over political ideology, and the bounds you state are simply the dogma of a particular political sect fond of the “natural rights” evasion. Human rights are a matter determined by the conscience of humans, and (while not explicitly called out there), water seems to fall squarely within the broad international consensus on what constitutes “human rights” expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially Article 25.
- Georgelemental 3y ago> Human rights are a matter determined by the conscience of humans …and the laws of physics. If there is physically not enough water around to satisfy everyone's needs, then no amount of agitation about ‘rights’ will change that. A true universal right is not contingent on a particular material situation.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- soks86 3y agoThis is about uncontrolled consumption and waste. The physics are well understood. You're arguing about "true universal right" not water. This is a political issue not a philosophical one. A bit odd to claim both physics and philosophy in an argument while ignoring all that in between stuff, that's where humanity happens.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> …and the laws of physics. No, laws of physics do not determine rights. Pragmatics and rights are orthogonal. > If there is physically not enough water around to satisfy everyone's needs, then no amount of agitation about ‘rights’ will change that. This is, ironically, more relevant to property rights in water (which are usually entitlements to take a particular amount) than to any common construction of water as a human right, which rather than an entitlement to a particular quantity is fenerally constructed as a right to equitable priority in distribution of what does exist.
- em-bee 3y agowhat? on the contrary. every human need must by necessity be a right. ignoring human needs is in itself a human rights violation. since water is needed to survive, unless you want to deny people the right to live, water must be a human right.
- Georgelemental 3y agoA human right is universal, something that applies to all times and all places, by virtue of the human's existence. People can try to take them away, but not grant them, because they are already granted by default. If you are marooned, alone, on a desert island, you still have a right to free expression, due process, etc. In contrast, limited resources require active effort to obtain, and even that might not be enough. If you are stuck on the desert island, with no food or fresh water available, no amount of agitation about your ‘rights’ will override the laws of physics to make them appear. Even in a more advanced society, producing enough food and water to ensure everyone's survival may be physically impossible (especially if you insist on a certain level of quality). Therefore, ‘rights’ to limited resources are not universal, they are subordinate to (at minimum) the laws of nature.
- TheAceOfHearts 3y agoThis just seems like petty arguing over the definition of words. Which is resolved quite easily by pointing out that your definition is not the one used by most groups, in particular by the people at the UN who wrote those human rights declarations.
- Georgelemental 3y agoBy confusing true universal rights with fake contingent ‘rights’ full of exceptions and caveats, you weaken the true rights. Naturally, authoritarian leaders and would-be despots at the UN and elsewhere are totally on board with this strategy.
- em-bee 3y agoi don't think that is relevant. human rights applies to the relationship between people. stuck on an island i can do all sorts of things, even illegal ones, because noone is there to stop me. so that's not really useful in determining my right to free expression or due process. both only work if there are others to listen or to charge me with a crime. however, if i am among other people then those people have the obligation to do everything in their power to keep me alive, because that is my human right. and that would include to share their water, or to cooperate to build a desalination plant, or whatever is needed to survive.
- lnxg33k1 3y agoI was talking about humans on earth, that ball floating around made of 71% water, whose salt doesn't boil
- Georgelemental 3y agoSaltwater may be abundant, but it requires energy and infrastructure to desalinate and transport. Nobody would fight over it if those were trivial and unlimited.
- lnxg33k1 3y agoWhat did you see when you read about infrastructure in my original message?
- perryizgr8 3y agoAgreed, anything that requires other people's labour to provide to you is not your right, e.g. education, food, water, broadband, petrol, housing.