3 ms·

The thing is, food and shelter are the only two beginning rights humans had - if you can call them rights. Clothing wasn't around the entire time humans were, i

by bennyg 13y ago

The thing is, food and shelter are the only two beginning rights humans had - if you can call them rights. Clothing wasn't around the entire time humans were, in fact some tribes and pockets of humanity don't wear clothing or at least not much of it to be on the same playing field as the Western world. A job - now that's practically modern if we're talking about the entirety of homo sapiens walking the Earth. Those are meta-rights that have been appended on; those are privileges that make sense in contemporary, first-world culture. The access to knowledge is the prime candidate for being added to that list, if anything else should be added at all. I don't see why this isn't an important discussion.

catnaroek 13y ago
Sure. Human rights are not universal laws in the same sense the laws of physics are. And, as our ability to provide well-being and comfort for ourselves increases, we can expand the notion of what the bare minimum is that everyone ought to be able to afford. [edit] But in a world where there are still people who die of starvation, it is immoral to talk about making connectivity a human right. [/edit] === By "a job", I did not mean "working for some company". Rather, I meant the opportunity to do something society considers valuable, and be rewarded in return.
- jack9 13y ago
  I have recently reversed my stance, which was similar to yours. > No. People need food, clothing, shelter, a job to survive. They also need information. If you have food clothing shelter in an abandoned field that's radioactive, the former elements do not matter. You die. Information is something taken for granted, because we expect other humans to share. That isn't always practical or possible. There is a vast amount of critically pertinent information that becomes available on the net in realtime. Saying people don't have the right to access it, is a death sentence for many.
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
Wow ... That's very clever, I'm impressed. I'm not trying to criticize you, specifically, but it just seems so odd to see such a constant barrage of unmitigated pedantry. What's funny is why, if our sole goal is show how clever we are, do we focus on such a laughable matter but instead question the very notion of rights themselves rather than some barely sophomoric clothing not being a right because of tribe this that or the other ... I mean I don't know, some tribes in the past decided a great many strange things but I'm not sure there is really a "meta" point to be made of it.

by bennyg 13y ago

catnaroek 13y ago

Sure. Human rights are not universal laws in the same sense the laws of physics are. And, as our ability to provide well-being and comfort for ourselves increases, we can expand the notion of what the bare minimum is that everyone ought to be able to afford. [edit] But in a world where there are still people who die of starvation, it is immoral to talk about making connectivity a human right. [/edit] === By "a job", I did not mean "working for some company". Rather, I meant the opportunity to do something society considers valuable, and be rewarded in return.

jack9 13y ago
I have recently reversed my stance, which was similar to yours. > No. People need food, clothing, shelter, a job to survive. They also need information. If you have food clothing shelter in an abandoned field that's radioactive, the former elements do not matter. You die. Information is something taken for granted, because we expect other humans to share. That isn't always practical or possible. There is a vast amount of critically pertinent information that becomes available on the net in realtime. Saying people don't have the right to access it, is a death sentence for many.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

Wow ... That's very clever, I'm impressed. I'm not trying to criticize you, specifically, but it just seems so odd to see such a constant barrage of unmitigated pedantry. What's funny is why, if our sole goal is show how clever we are, do we focus on such a laughable matter but instead question the very notion of rights themselves rather than some barely sophomoric clothing not being a right because of tribe this that or the other ... I mean I don't know, some tribes in the past decided a great many strange things but I'm not sure there is really a "meta" point to be made of it.