> Luke:
>
> There's no easy way to seperate needs and wants, and even if you do so
> in a halfway plausible manner (which I doubt is possible), why should
> the "need" of one necessarily override the wants of many? To my mind,
> making literature available and understandable to millions of people is
> more important than saving the lives of a handful.
>
> ============
>
>
>
> Hmmmm.
>
>
> What a head-scratchingly odd choice: literature for millions or saving
> the lives of a handful? This inspires a new drinking game -- terrible
> choices no one will ever have to make from now, till the sun goes nova.
Umm, no, it's a choice we have to make right now, _and would have to make, no matter how rationally our social institutions were ordered_. E.g. there are any number of ailments that afflict a few and could be perhaps cured if we threw a great deal more resources at them, but doing so would have to come at the cost of other worthy social spending priorities.
When we speak of needs, we seem to imply some sort of necessity. What sort of necessity? At first stab, "x needs y" can be translated as "x needs y to survive." But sometimes we're not even entitled to the means of continued existence--our resources under conditions of scarcity (i.e. what might also be called simply "the human condition") can't always support such a broad entitlement.
-- Luke