Originally Posted by equus
Is this true? I'm serious - the rather obvious cruelty of bringing a child up with only the above would make it an unlikely experiment. I think though it has happened, I've never researched it carefully enough but have loose memories of the effects of emotional starvation studied after neglect. I would also point to the use of solitary confinement across so many cultures as a means of both punishment and torture. What rational base is there for for the belief that all we need is food, air, water, light etc? Is it based on any knowledge of survival with just those things? Is there any evidence of that having happened?
Taking as an example the history of sign language and the deaf; the affects of periods of time when deaf people were forbidden to use signing and instead forced to lip read and attempt speech, then comparing it to times when signing has been encouraged - I would suggest the results show a certain need for language.
Also I would offer dignity and freedom from persecution as something slightly more than just a desire. The impact of prolonged emotional abuse is well documented (I think this is safe enough not to reference but I will if you wish). What about slavery? Is it fair to say all NEEDS have been met if a person is given the contents of that small list and nothing more?
Is want versus need truly a clear black white line?
Again, this is taking the extreme situations and using them to illustrate the point. But what you are doing is taking the things which
you value strongly and converting them from strong preferences to needs.
No, we really don't
need anything more than the things I mentioned. But it is characteristic of an educated, affluent society that we will believe many things are needs and even basic rights. Examples would include good (not just adequate) nutrition, education, health care, emotional nurturing, effective communication, etc.
It is all well and good to consider that society 'should' provide those things. It is virtuous to act politically to bring them about. But once you adopt the concept that they are NEEDS (capitalized, no less!), then you are changing the whole basis of the debate.
What I learn from your list is the
things you value highly, and that you are one who would work to advance a social welfare state. A conservative American would probably list individual freedoms, including property rights and civil liberties, somewhat higher than you would. Those are values, not needs. And many of the things you mention would fall further down on the value list in a society which is not safe or secure (we are often willing to exchange many rights for safety), or where there are so few resources that it isn't possible to have all the things you strongly prefer.