I said, if you can't live without it, it's a need. If the lack of it would cripple you, it's a need. If its absence is an annoyance, or means a little less fun, it's a want.

You then defined these statements in purely biological terms.

That was not my intent. Such an existence is a waste of perfectly good cerebral cortex.

Even the cavedwellers took time for art. It was their way of relating to the mystery of the world around them.

I have never stated or implied that living in a wealthy nation is a crime against the world. I believe, however, that the wealthy nations have a responsibility to those less well-off, because the wealthy have more of an opportunity to reflect on the value of humanity. We are in a position to lead. Shall we lead as George Washington led, or shall we act like Louis XV?

I also believe that people need to make that distinction for themselves, between what they need to exist, what they need to live, and what would be fun to have. This is not a distinction I hear made much anymore. If the distinction doesn't exist, how does one identify what's really important?

The discussion here concerned how people "need" this and that. Well, no, they don't. Needs can be pretty narrowly defined if we are honest about it. I, at this point, need the use of a computer to do my work, because the people who employ me use them all the time. It's the standard here. I don't need to own one, though that is the most convenient arrangement. What I would like best, what I want very much, is to own my own, and not share it with all the other members of my family, but that's completely out of the question because there are other people for me to consider who have actual needs: my kids, for clothes, just as a start.

Can we begin to make distinctions like this once again? Would it really hurt everyone's investments that much?

It's also not a crime to consider the needs of the community as a whole. When talking about transportation, electricity supply, clean air, available water, and so forth, we must address the community's needs along with our own. If we say that the community may dictate what the individual may purchase or own right down to the number, size, and even color of property, without consideration for the right to be left alone, that's wrong. If we say that the individual can pretty much do whatever he wants as long as he hasn't actually inflicted specific personal injury on another, and the community will have to deal with it, I think that's wrong too.