[bane]

I really hate arguments that derive from what a person "needs". Humans need amazingly little. Even when I was living below the poverty line I was bathed in the riches of my civilization, had high-speed internet, ate plentiful food, was clothed and had sheltered.

I've also worked in conditions where I lived in a 1/4th of a trailer with a half-height locker and whatever I could keep in my top bunk with me -- I shared the space with another adult. I had a few sets of clothes, a jacket, no internet or useful entertainment and 3 shipped in boxed cold, marginally nutritious meals per day. I didn't die and I'm sure I could lose many of those "luxuries" and still not die.

Once when my parents made some bad financial bets, we ended up homeless and living in a motel. It turns out a family of four really can live in space not much bigger than a foldaway bed, a small bathroom and a hotplate. Amazingly, even after months of this, none of us died. I'm sure we could have gone even more spartan if we had needed -- maybe share the bathroom with a few other rooms? Combined instant noodle hotplate cooking area with some of our neighbors? Why do we need heat, just wear more clothes! Don't need a/c, just wear less! Don't need heat or a/c, don't need electricity then, use a butane stove instead of a hotplate! I guarantee, we wouldn't die.

Humans need remarkably little. Most humans would get along just fine with two sets of clothes, a marginal blanket and a decent cold meal of daily calories every day. And yes, they'd get along for quite a long time like that. It would be a wretched, terrible existence, but "need" doesn't leave room for pleasantries.

[sithadmin]

Your model of human needs isn't adequate for life in anything resembling a functional society, let alone a developed society.

Defining 'human needs' as 'the minimum set of requirements not to die' isn't just laughable in that it's archaic to the point of being absurd, but it's also undermined by your narratives. Take your blinders off, and in each of your examples given here, you'll find that you were in all situations deeply dependent upon social goods (infrastructures and supply chains) that you've glossed over.

[bane]

Humans don't need a developed society. That was never a qualification for "need". We got along just fine for hundreds of thousands of years without any sort of civilization at all thank you.

[Torwald]

Also, it is pretty arrogant to think you know what somebody else needs are. Furthermore, it can become an attack on the other party's freedom of choice (self-actualization).

[settsu]

A refrain I've often heard from victims of circumstance.

Assuming you were living in an ostensibly "first world" society, I'd guess most people are unsettled by the sense that your experience was both sadly typical and economically inexcusable, which is the likely context for many criticisms of the article's subject.

[JoeAltmaier]

Even that 'wretched' existence doesn't have to be wretched - depending upon the external environment. I've been camping for extended periods with little more than that. Its not comfortable, but the experience was way better in many ways that my 'comfortable' cubicle.

[mdpopescu]

Thank you. I too hate that word. Needs are always backed by wants. A man who wants to commit suicide doesn't need to breathe. A man who wants to sing at the opera needs to practice. Needs derive from wants.