Is food a basic human right? Should it be?
Or is the right to have access to adequate nutrition a subset of the right to life?
Or is the right to have access to adequate nutrition a subset of the right to life?
To me adequate nutrition is the Sausage McMuffin w/ Egg I had about an hour ago. Define adequate in this context.
Yes, though.
Yes, though.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-05-16 11:17:53)
Enough calories and sufficient healthiness of food to keep you alive & fit.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
To me adequate nutrition is the Sausage McMuffin w/ Egg I had about an hour ago. Define adequate in this context.
The McMuffin satisfies the first condition.
Stop eating that McStuff, it'll kill you.
Last edited by apollo_fi (2007-05-16 11:20:17)
It's a basic human need. Or, a need any animal needs. Need I say more.
______________
Is air a basic human right? Should it be?
Or is the right to have access to an air-supply a subset of the right to life?
______________
Is air a basic human right? Should it be?
Or is the right to have access to an air-supply a subset of the right to life?
Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-16 11:22:46)
I would answer 'yes' to both questions.topal63 wrote:
Is air a basic human right? Should it be?
Or is the right to have access to an air-supply a subset of the right to life?
But... I like my steaks. I like the fact that my local grocers and markets have a bountiful selection of varied produce available, from all over the world - a veritable horn of plenty.
Adequate nutrition that is guaranteed to all would change that rather radically.
Yeah, I agree. Still, no better hangover cure than a McMuffin.apollo_fi wrote:
Enough calories and sufficient healthiness of food to keep you alive & fit.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
To me adequate nutrition is the Sausage McMuffin w/ Egg I had about an hour ago. Define adequate in this context.
The McMuffin satisfies the first condition.
Stop eating that McStuff, it'll kill you.
I would hope the access to food and air is a 'subset' of the right to life.
"You have a right to life, but you have no right to energy and/or fuel"...
"I will allow you to live, but you can never eat nor breathe"...
Urrrggggh!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
To me adequate nutrition is the Sausage McMuffin w/ Egg I had about an hour ago. Define adequate in this context.
Yes, though.
Yes there is. Full English breakfast with tea and orange juice.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yeah, I agree. Still, no better hangover cure than a McMuffin.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-16 11:32:14)
Never had it, and I don't really like tea. Does it give you a sugar/fat high like aforementioned McMuffin?Bertster7 wrote:
Urrrggggh!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
To me adequate nutrition is the Sausage McMuffin w/ Egg I had about an hour ago. Define adequate in this context.
Yes, though.Yes there is. Full English breakfast with tea and orange juice.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yeah, I agree. Still, no better hangover cure than a McMuffin.
Spam, spam, spam.
Would you give up your McMuffins, stale beans, greasy sausages, limp bacon, tea etc. to guarantee the global availability of the basic human right of food?
Would you give up your McMuffins, stale beans, greasy sausages, limp bacon, tea etc. to guarantee the global availability of the basic human right of food?
It is not a right it is a need.apollo_fi wrote:
Spam, spam, spam.
Would you give up your McMuffins, stale beans, greasy sausages, limp bacon, tea etc. to guarantee the global availability of the basic human right of food?
Air is a need.
Water is a need.
Education is a need.
Engineering a clean-water system, to maintain the water-supply is a need.
Solving the world hunger problem and the real needs of the suffering; is not something so easily solved. You cannot just call it (or redefine a need as) a right, and then guarantee that everyone will survive and have access to a food supply or clean water supply. This potentially reduces what it is to be human to what is to be an animal.
The complex you want to create is the right to a society/culture - and that would be a flourishing one. Reduction of the complex to the simple can potentially create problems rather than solve them. I abhor the base realist idea that "a population exceeds the food supply." But, this base natural mechanism plays itself out, on a daily basis, in the world.
To create the right to prosperity (a diverse easily accessed food supply would be included in this sub-set) - you must create a self-sustaining or interdependent complex; a society capable of meeting the demands of a population; not the demands of an individual. Or the demands of a singular event (a drought, etc).
Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-16 12:04:26)
Erm...topal63 wrote:
It is not a right it is a need.apollo_fi wrote:
Spam, spam, spam.
Would you give up your McMuffins, stale beans, greasy sausages, limp bacon, tea etc. to guarantee the global availability of the basic human right of food?
Air is a need.
Water is a need.
Education is a need.
Engineering a clean-water system, to maintain the water-supply is a need.
Solving the world hunger problem and the real needs of the suffering; is not something so easily solved.
Breathing is a need, satisfied by air.
Thirst is a need, satisfied by water.
The lack of knowledge is a need, satisfied by education.
Hunger is a need, satisfied by food.
Solving the world hunger problem will not, indeed, be easily solved.
Even more so. But it actually tastes good and is made of food instead of McFood - which is different and inferior.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Never had it, and I don't really like tea. Does it give you a sugar/fat high like aforementioned McMuffin?Bertster7 wrote:
Urrrggggh!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
To me adequate nutrition is the Sausage McMuffin w/ Egg I had about an hour ago. Define adequate in this context.
Yes, though.Yes there is. Full English breakfast with tea and orange juice.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yeah, I agree. Still, no better hangover cure than a McMuffin.
Food should be a basic human right.
GOOD TASTING food is another story.
GOOD TASTING food is another story.
No.apollo_fi wrote:
Spam, spam, spam.
Would you give up your McMuffins, stale beans, greasy sausages, limp bacon, tea etc. to guarantee the global availability of the basic human right of food?
OK... but all of the rights stated in the UN declaration of human rights surely meet a human need.topal63 wrote:
Solving the world hunger problem and the real needs of the suffering; is not something so easily solved. You cannot just call it (or redefine a need as) a right, and then guarantee that everyone will survive and have access to a food supply or clean water supply. This potentially reduces what it is to be human to what is to be an animal.
You'll have to clarify the statement that guaranteed access to food and clean water potentially reduces humans to farm animals a bit. What do you mean?
You can't just throw food, like feed at cattle, and expect the problem to be solved.apollo_fi wrote:
OK... but all of the rights stated in the UN declaration of human rights surely meet a human need.topal63 wrote:
Solving the world hunger problem and the real needs of the suffering; is not something so easily solved. You cannot just call it (or redefine a need as) a right, and then guarantee that everyone will survive and have access to a food supply or clean water supply. This potentially reduces what it is to be human to what is to be an animal.
You'll have to clarify the statement that guaranteed access to food and clean water potentially reduces humans to farm animals a bit. What do you mean?
Do you see where I am going with this...apollo_fi wrote:
Erm...topal63 wrote:
It is not a right it is a need.apollo_fi wrote:
Spam, spam, spam.
Would you give up your McMuffins, stale beans, greasy sausages, limp bacon, tea etc. to guarantee the global availability of the basic human right of food?
Air is a need.
Water is a need.
Education is a need.
Engineering a clean-water system, to maintain the water-supply is a need.
Solving the world hunger problem and the real needs of the suffering; is not something so easily solved.
Breathing is a need, satisfied by air.
Thirst is a need, satisfied by water.
The lack of knowledge is a need, satisfied by education.
Hunger is a need, satisfied by food.
Solving the world hunger problem will not, indeed, be easily solved.
What you perceive as freely available to you in a Western Modern World is not even a need in many respects. A bag of Cheetos can hardly be called satisfying a survival need (a whimsy or craving - yes; survival need - no). And you want to extend that basic non-need you enjoy as a right to others that are truly suffering. But, to meet the need and create the right you need to create the complex. The suffering-society itself is what needs to be built up.
You need to create internal mechanisms in the society.
Humans are social animals; and you want to eliminate the suffering associated with hunger & starvation; but to do this you have to change the society itself.mindless_idiot wrote:
The complex you want to create is the right to a society/culture - and that would be a flourishing one. Reduction of the complex to the simple can potentially create problems rather than solve them. I abhor the base realist idea that "a population exceeds the food supply." But, this base natural mechanism plays itself out, on a daily basis, in the world.
To create the right to prosperity (a diverse easily accessed food supply would be included in this sub-set) - you must create a self-sustaining or interdependent complex; a society capable of meeting the demands of a population; not the demands of an individual. Or the demands of a singular event (a drought, etc).
Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-16 12:21:58)
When it comes to Human Rights, the subtext is that the state/government must have some role in promoting them. Equal access to justice; freedom from discrimination - that sort of thing.
I believe that denial of access to food should be a crime against humanity, however, that is distinctly different from calling access to food a human right. The latter implies that the state should be responsible for feeding the starving and I don't believe that is so. Taken a step further, then, the state should provide food, clothing and shelter to all who need them - the basic necessities as it were - and that is therefore a mandatory welfare state.
I believe that denial of access to food should be a crime against humanity, however, that is distinctly different from calling access to food a human right. The latter implies that the state should be responsible for feeding the starving and I don't believe that is so. Taken a step further, then, the state should provide food, clothing and shelter to all who need them - the basic necessities as it were - and that is therefore a mandatory welfare state.
QFTBertster7 wrote:
Yes there is. Full English breakfast with tea and orange juice.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yeah, I agree. Still, no better hangover cure than a McMuffin.
lol!apollo_fi wrote:
The lack of knowledge is a need, satisfied by education.
Hunger is a need, satisfied by food.
The lack of knowledge is a need?
Hunger is a need?
Hey, hey...Bertster7 wrote:
lol!apollo_fi wrote:
The lack of knowledge is a need, satisfied by education.
Hunger is a need, satisfied by food.
The lack of knowledge is a need?
Hunger is a need?
Give a non-native a break. How come hunger is not a need? As in 'I'm hungry, I need food'? I have a need for food, yes, but is 'Food' really the need?
Food is a need. Hunger is a condition of a lack of food.
Nourishment is the need. Hunger is the condition that arises from not meeting that need in a timely fashion.apollo_fi wrote:
Hey, hey...Bertster7 wrote:
lol!apollo_fi wrote:
The lack of knowledge is a need, satisfied by education.
Hunger is a need, satisfied by food.
The lack of knowledge is a need?
Hunger is a need?
Give a non-native a break. How come hunger is not a need? As in 'I'm hungry, I need food'? I have a need for food, yes, but is 'Food' really the need?
I wouldn't have really noticed if it hadn't been for the "lack of knowledge is a need" statement, that made me laugh.
Holy mistaken semantics.Vilham wrote:
Food is a need. Hunger is a condition of a lack of food.
Thank you gentlemen, I have just learned... an idiom.
I think what you're really trying to say is this (am I wrong)?apollo_fi wrote:
Holy mistaken semantics.Vilham wrote:
Food is a need. Hunger is a condition of a lack of food.
Thank you gentlemen, I have just learned... an idiom.
That the quality of life you enjoy should be something freely available to others (since it seems freely available to you in your society)? This includes access to food?
Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-16 12:43:53)
No... that's not quite what I am attempting to saytopal63 wrote:
I think what your really trying to say is this (am I wrong)?apollo_fi wrote:
Holy mistaken semantics.Vilham wrote:
Food is a need. Hunger is a condition of a lack of food.
Thank you gentlemen, I have just learned... an idiom.
That the quality of life you enjoy should be something freely available to others (since it seems freely available to you in your society)? This includes access to food?
I'm trying to say this:
The quality of life I (or we) enjoy is not sustainable, if we're to feed everyone.