Hacker News Reader

Comment by lm28469 | Hacker News Reader

> someone will show up and say Music is not essential

Depends on your definition of essential, I'd argue 100% of the world population would survive just fine without music or flowers. Food is essential, water is essential, medicine is essential, shelter is essential. Some tulips imported for 2000km away aren't. I mean, do we really have to debate this ?

If we go there, sooner or later, someone will show up and say Ketchup is essential.

View on HN

If you’re only concerned about the lowest layer of Maslov’s pyramid, then you might be right.

Few things are “essential”. But that’s hardly the point.

Are all those people really essential, or could we perhaps do with fewer people too?

100% of the world population would survive just fine without music or flowers

No they wouldn't, they'd get depressed and eventually become either withdrawn or violent. I'm not arguing for a wasteful and environmentally destructive flower trade, but against your notion that mere maintenance of the biological organism is sufficient. Universals like music and flowers serve an important role in social cohesion.

Can I decide what is essential to me and you decide what is essential to you? And then if there are not enough of me, maybe I have to pay more? And maybe if there are not enough of you, you pay more for those that provide those essentialities? Hm... This reminds me of something.

If only there wasn't such a thing as externalized costs...

The word "essential" by itself is ambiguous. GP didn't posit "Music is essential to survive."

Anyways, is love essential?

Up until someone decides that food is also not essential for the majority of the population and we will just need to drink some sort of universal soy and lentil based smoothie. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com