“Basic human needs – elemental needs – are intrinsically different from other material needs, because they can be satisfied. Other needs appear to be insatiable, as consumption pattern clearly demonstrate.” (George Brown Jr., Representative, Dem. California, US Congress.)

This needs some amplification. The basic human needs are usually considered to be food, drink, clothing, and shelter. Not all kinds of these are elemental, i.e. necessary for survival in good health. Regarding food, specific amounts of nutrients (proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, and minerals) are needed, but the specific form in which they are supplied is not important; e.g. gourmet food is a luxury, not a necessity. (Note that the definition of “elemental” specifies not just bare survival, but also good health.) Similarly regarding drink, water is the only necessary ingredient; all other drinks (soft or alcoholic, coffee and tea) are luxury. (Milk is considered a food.) Regarding clothing, enough is needed to provide protection against heat or cold, rain and wind; esthetic qualities and pleasing appearance are a luxury. Regarding shelter, simple walls and roof with door and window would seem sufficient, with enough room for beds, table and chairs; larger houses and more furnishings are luxury.

It is not that luxuries are to be denied to people – they add to the enjoyment of life – but we are striving for clear definitions. Nevertheless, it is already evident how insatiable the desire for luxuries can be. There seems to be no definable limit to high quality in food and drink, elaborateness and high fashion in clothing, or spaciousness and decoration in living quarters.

In addition to these four types of luxuries, there are also luxuries of other types: automobiles and bicycles for transportation, radio and television for entertainment, telephone and fax for communication, books for education, musical instruments for artistic expression, and access to public amenities such as trains, planes, buses, schools, parking lots, libraries, museums, concert halls, lecture halls, churches, playgrounds, parks, sports facilities – sometimes for a fee, sometimes without a fee.

None of these are essential for survival and good health, and yet they do add not only to happiness, but often to mental and spiritual development. Yet again, the desire for them is insatiable, both as to quality (e.g. faster cars) and quantity (three cars per family, a radio in every room).

There are also labour-saving devices for the household, which count as luxuries: ovens, toasters, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, dryers, microwave ovens. Again, there seems to be no limit as to quality and quantity desired. New devices are appearing all the time.

It is not just that the desire for luxuries is insatiable; often it is artificially created by advertising. Good examples are cosmetics, perfumes, high fashion clothing, and jewelry.

There is one type of basic need that was traditionally not included, because it was taken for granted: clean air and water, and safe, crime-free streets. Because of increasing pollution and rising crime rates, the satisfaction of these basic needs is no longer automatically assured, and should be explicitly added to the list. This also applies to protection against ultraviolet rays from the sun, which used to be provided by the ozone layer before it suffered anthropogenic damage.

Now it seems that some of our luxuries are in conflict with these additional basic needs, especially the ecological ones. Our desire for pleasant living interferes with our need for health. This may get much worse with time, until our very survival is threatened. Examples are spray cans which cause ozone layer damage, rich foods which predispose us to colon cancer and cardiovascular diseases, smoking which causes lung cancer, alcohol consumption which leads to cirrhosis of the liver, automobiles which produce urban smog and highway accidents, detergents which pollute rivers and streams, and many others.

Logic would certainly dictate that basic needs should be satisfied before luxuries, but that often does not haPpen, because the cause-and-effect connections are delayed, not immediately obvious, and sometimes unconsciously denied, because in the meantime we have become addicted to the luxuries.

Addiction is an apt metaphor for this condition. Sometimes it is literally an addiction, as with cigarettes and alcohol. We crave the luxuries (cars, whipped cream and other rich and fatty foods, coffee, expensive holidays, big houses); giving them up would cause withdrawal symptoms – yet continuing to indulge in them is wrecking our health. The addiction is partly due to the increased social status that goes with conspicuous consumption as perceived by others. These luxuries become a part of our self-definition, our social identity. They will be extremely difficult to give up.

However, if we are to live in good health (which includes a healthy environment), we would have to give up only the pernicious luxuries, not all luxuries, as here defined. The ones that contribute to spiritual and mental development (churches, schools, libraries, museums, concert halls) or to entertainment (sports, parks, playgrounds) usually do not damage the environment – though perhaps golf courses take up too much land and water, and travel entails some air pollution and consumes fossil fuel energy.

The problems may be social rather than environmental – the unequal distribution of goods and services. If the luxuries of the upper classes detract from the satisfaction of the basic needs of the poor (this means their health and survival!), then a social injustice has been committed and human rights have been violated, even if this happens structurally and systemically, rather than intentionally.

Let us then formulate some principles about basic needs and luxuries.

The first principle is that the basic needs of all humans must be satisfied before anyone gets to enjoy any luxuries. We are very far from observing this principle in the real world.

The second principle is that luxuries which damage health or the environment should be avoided. Not only should we not damage ourselves, but we must not harm others or the world as a whole.

The third principle would allow first the luxuries which contribute to mental and spiritual development, especially the simple ones, such as books, libraries, and elementary schools. (Education is almost as basic as health, but not quite.)

The fourth principle would give priority to simple machines over complex machines: bicycles over cars, treadle sewing machines over electric ones, wringer washing machines over automatic ones, brooms and mops over vacuum cleaners, cloth diapers over disposables, hanging out the wash over electric dryers. These are yesterday’s technologies, but some of us still remember them fondly, and we did not feel hard done by when using them. They save on electric power and fossil fuels. The muscular effort is beneficial to health: why drive everywhere and then buy expensive exercise machines to prevent obesity? These technologies have been called “intermediate” or “appropriate”. though the definitional lines of demarcation from “high” technology are sometimes vague.

By observing these guidelines, we might achieve a lifestyle that would be just and sustainable, as well as healthful and satisfying. Addiction to harmful luxuries can be cured, if we could abolish the advertising that is equivalent to drug-pushing, and learn to derive our sense of identity from our real achievements rather than from conspicuous consumption.