The logic of needs
This is getting off topic, but the notion of needs is so often misunderstood that it's worth a small post about it here. Those who want to dismiss the importance of some consumer good will frequently assert that it only satisfies someone's wants and not any real need. The underlying idea is that wants are subjective (and not important) whereas needs are objective (and presumably important).
This idea is fundamentally confused. In fact, needs logically presuppose wants. This is disguised by our language because we say things like "I need oxygen", a sentence whose surface grammar makes it seem as if my need for oxygen is something objective, completely independent of any wants that I may happen to have. But what I really mean when I say that I need oxygen is something like the following: "I need oxygen in order to achieve my end of continued survival", or more to the point, "I want to live, and I need oxygen in order to satisfy this want." If I didn't want to live, I certainly wouldn't need oxygen. The general point here is that needs only make sense if they are understood as a means of achieving some other end.
Once this is understood, the idea that satisfying needs is important but satisfying wants is not becomes incoherent. No doubt satisfying some wants is very important, and satisfying some other wants is of very little importance. Since needs depend on particular wants, satisfying some needs is also important, and satisfying many others is not. Hence, it is misguided to suggest that all things that satisfy wants are not important and all things that satisfy needs are.
Going back to the point in my original post, many people in our society do need new cars (or buildings) once in a while to satisfy important wants that they have.
Those who insist that new cars/buildings don't satisfy any needs usually mean that people can live without them. The implicit, unrecognized assumption here is that the wants associated with the need for a car are unimportant because the only important want is the desire to live. Although there is a lot of room for debate about what wants are and are not important, the assumption that the only important desire is for mere survival is highly implausible.
There's much more to be said but you get the point.
Warren
This is getting off topic, but the notion of needs is so often misunderstood that it's worth a small post about it here. Those who want to dismiss the importance of some consumer good will frequently assert that it only satisfies someone's wants and not any real need. The underlying idea is that wants are subjective (and not important) whereas needs are objective (and presumably important).
This idea is fundamentally confused. In fact, needs logically presuppose wants. This is disguised by our language because we say things like "I need oxygen", a sentence whose surface grammar makes it seem as if my need for oxygen is something objective, completely independent of any wants that I may happen to have. But what I really mean when I say that I need oxygen is something like the following: "I need oxygen in order to achieve my end of continued survival", or more to the point, "I want to live, and I need oxygen in order to satisfy this want." If I didn't want to live, I certainly wouldn't need oxygen. The general point here is that needs only make sense if they are understood as a means of achieving some other end.
Once this is understood, the idea that satisfying needs is important but satisfying wants is not becomes incoherent. No doubt satisfying some wants is very important, and satisfying some other wants is of very little importance. Since needs depend on particular wants, satisfying some needs is also important, and satisfying many others is not. Hence, it is misguided to suggest that all things that satisfy wants are not important and all things that satisfy needs are.
Going back to the point in my original post, many people in our society do need new cars (or buildings) once in a while to satisfy important wants that they have.
Those who insist that new cars/buildings don't satisfy any needs usually mean that people can live without them. The implicit, unrecognized assumption here is that the wants associated with the need for a car are unimportant because the only important want is the desire to live. Although there is a lot of room for debate about what wants are and are not important, the assumption that the only important desire is for mere survival is highly implausible.
There's much more to be said but you get the point.
Warren
