Re: [DE] What are VITAL NEEDS?

>> * What are "vital needs"?
>
>David MacClement provided a (necessarily grim) list of minimums:
>"**  That minimum required to stay alive as a functioning human; ..."
>Betsy added:
>" in addition to the basic physical survival needs ..."
At 08:34 10/06/99 -0700, Eric wrote:
>  Here's my version [for] physical and mental survival:
>air, water, food, warmth, rest, activity,
>companionship, purpose, self or group expression
>

**  As of earlier this week, I've begun to see there could reasonably be a
distinction, as far as the use of "vital needs" in the DE "Platform" is
concerned, between the bare minimum for survival, and a complete list of
human requirements that can fairly be satisfied with only negligible impact
on other species and populations.

**  There seems to be a need, probably vital, for purpose - something to
enjoy working towards - in one's life. From my own experience I wouldn't
call it vital, but seeing the change in my wife this last week, after she
was picked to be on the Greens' candidates list (by their executive at
their annual conference) - she's now bubbling with energy, "feeling happy"
- I now know that Betsy's 'companionship ... and celebration', and Eric's
'purpose, self or group expression' refer to something so fundamentally
human that it probably should be included in: 'alive as a functioning human'.


[Eric: ]
>This brings up the questions:
>"Does satisfying vital needs lead to flourishing?"
>"Why is there a distinction between humans satisfying their vital needs and
>the flourishing and diversity of other species?"
>
**  I expect this is where I part company with most (all?) deep ecologists:
I see no need for flourishing, either for humans or any other species. I'd
go further: I am very suspicious of humans flourishing - I'd say they've
gone too far in that way and 'anti-flourishing' is needed for perhaps 10
generations. Not as a punishment (this implies a form of heirarchy), but as
a redressing of wrongs, a serious attempt to return the world to the status
quo ante.

**  Probably I should be talking about points along a line. Flourishing is
positive, my 'no need for flourishing' is zero, and what I recommend for
homo sapiens is negative. From this view, there can be argument as to how
far from zero the goal should be, as well as whether it should be positive
or negative.


**  P.S. This morning we had a phone call from our daughter (now with her
{maternal} grandmother or Nain, in Wales), in which she she commented on
her need for 'intelligent conversation'.  This was in the general context
of who she might be willing to spend the rest of her life with, but might
be another addition to our burgeoning list of vital needs.

David.
(David MacClement) mailto:d1v9d@bigfoot.com 
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/Pg1-AD11.html#top
*************************************************************