onlooker wrote:vtsnowedin wrote:Obviously the people that repeatedly write and say this are wrong. If it is a "necessity of life" and a person lacks it they will soon be dead. So there are two choices, one that people can live with much less food ,water , shelter and clothing then the authors think is "necessary"or two these people, that keep on living and increasing in population, have found ways to acquire adequate amounts of these" necessities "that the authors can't understand or measure.onlooker wrote:... As a result, billions of people are living without the very basic necessities of life - food, water, housing and sanitation."
At any rate the mere fact that the authors have declared these people if not dead doomed to soon be dead when they if fact persist and multiply proves that the authors are idiots.
Yes, the author erred. He/She should have said sufficient of the necessities of life. Meaning lacking in a balanced diet without sufficient nutrients or calories. Very inadequate housing lacking in sturdiness or cooking appliances or toilets etc. Lacking in clean water ie sanitation, also regular picking up and removal of waste and garbage. But I think then we ought not quibble, they are living lives that are pure squalor, endangering their health, insecure (much crime) and lack of decent medical care.
Life is a yes or no question. You are alive or you are dead. As these billions are alive they then by definition do indeed have the "necessities of life" . These idiots are trying to define "necessities" as those that provide a "good life" or a dignified life" or an "adequate life" but all of those definitions vary a lot between the extremes of Beverly Hills Ca. and the Bedouins of the Sahara.
How many gallons of clean water do you suppose a housewife in Beverley hills uses to raise her first born child for the first year of it's life. How many gallons will a Bedouin fifteen year old bride have to devote to the same task?