Jon Elster made this sort of point. It's fair enough, but it just shows that
in rich society with a profusion of needs, we need to make choices. Is that
so bad? It will be nice when the hard choice we must make is whether to
devote ourselves to the symphony or the seminar rather than to paying rent
or food! --jks
>CB: On a related topic, another reason that the notion that more and more
>needs, in an ever growing way like GDP, is not necessarily only standard to
>measure improvement of standard of living: the fulfillment or consumption
>of many needs takes long tracks of time. It takes time to listen to a
>symphony, attend a party , dance and sing, or to go fishing, to build a
>car, or to eat a decent meal, or to enjoy a beautiful sunset, or to grow a
>garden , to play games in sports, to learn a science, to care for a child.
>There is only so much time in a day or a lifetime. With an evergrowing ,
>unlimited proliferation of needs, eventually there will not be enough time
>to properly consume all the needs except in some instantaneous, empty
>sense: there will only be fast foods, not slow feastly dinners.
>Instantaneous consumption is not necessarily the highest quality
>consumption. The total quantity of needs can affect the individual
>qualitity of needs.
>
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
