51–60 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was talking about humans on earth, that ball floating around made of 71% water, whose salt doesn't boil
Saltwater may be abundant, but it requires energy and infrastructure to desalinate and transport. Nobody would fight over it if those were trivial and unlimited.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, if i am among other people then those people have the obligation to do everything in their power to keep me alive, because that is my human right. How far do you take this? If you are dying of a disease, and the only way to prolong your life by one week is a medication that costs $2 trillion in resources to produce one dose, is society obligated to produce the medication to slightly delay your death? What…
water is a resource that everyone needs, hence it needs to be shared. a specialized medication that not everyone needs is not the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nestlé has been under constant boycott for 46 years, and couldn't seem to stop abusing mothers and their young children. Flint or not, I will never purchase or use a Nestlé product. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott N.B. Nestlé sold their bottling operations in these USA, and no longer owns Arrowhead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrowhead_Water
Same. Recently discovered that Starbucks serves child-labour coffee owned by Nestle. [0] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/01/children-wo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
water is a resource that everyone needs, hence it needs to be shared. a specialized medication that not everyone needs is not the same thing.
Seems contradictory to your previous comment, but OK. What if there is enough water for only 50% of people? Or what if the water doesn't have an ideal mineral composition, but for 1000 times the expense, society could obtain better water that will extend one's lifespan by an average of 2 months?
if the resource is so limited that it really isn't enough for everyone, then it obviously can not be given to everyone. but if everyone needs it, then they still have a right to it. we then just have to figure out how to deal with those that miss out.
a more practical example: a sinking ship, and the rescue boat can not fit everyone. while it is a human right for everyone to be rescued, some will have to stay behind.
but, that doesn't change that there was a human right violated. in either cases we really do need to do everything in our power to rescue these people or find ways to extend the use of the water.
lack of resources does not abolish our obligation to do the best we can to change that, find alternatives, etc.
a better medicine example: covid. everyone needs that vaccination (ignoring those who don't want it) so it becomes a human right to get access to it. no matter the cost.
we can not abolish a right to something that everyone needs just because there is not enough of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what? on the contrary. every human need must by necessity be a right. ignoring human needs is in itself a human rights violation. since water is needed to survive, unless you want to deny people the right to live, water must be a human right.
A human right is universal, something that applies to all times and all places, by virtue of the human's existence. People can try to take them away, but not grant them, because they are already granted by default. If you are marooned, alone, on a desert island, you still have a right to free expression, due process, etc. In contrast, limited resources require active effort to obtain, and even that might not be enoug…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Human need ≠ human right. By definition, a limited resource cannot be a natural right. Rights aren’t natural, that’s a quasi-religious fiction invoked as a thought-terminating cliché to avoid debate over political ideology, and the bounds you state are simply the dogma of a particular political sect fond of the “natural rights” evasion. Human rights are a matter determined by the conscience of humans, and (while no…
> Human rights are a matter determined by the conscience of humans …and the laws of physics. If there is physically not enough water around to satisfy everyone's needs, then no amount of agitation about ‘rights’ will change that. A true universal right is not contingent on a particular material situation.
You're arguing about "true universal right" not water. This is a political issue not a philosophical one.
A bit odd to claim both physics and philosophy in an argument while ignoring all that in between stuff, that's where humanity happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems contradictory to your previous comment, but OK. What if there is enough water for only 50% of people? Or what if the water doesn't have an ideal mineral composition, but for 1000 times the expense, society could obtain better water that will extend one's lifespan by an average of 2 months?
when i said "do everything in their power to keep me alive" then that was probably a bit to strong. i meant do everything that is also needed for everyone else. special treatment that takes an unreasonable effort is not the same thing. if the resource is so limited that it really isn't enough for everyone, then it obviously can not be given to everyone. but if everyone needs it, then they still have a right to it. we…
Do bottling water actually consume a significant amount water vs like an average size farm? I personally thing bottled water is generally pretty unnecessary and really wasteful to transport but I can’t help think the actual amount of water given people are drinking it not watering plants or showering with it is relatively small?
Many blame Nestlé as the root cause of the Flint water crisis: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/29/nestle-pays-... The question isn't if farming is technically worse on a global scale, it's whether each individual aquifer can sustain its output.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
when i said "do everything in their power to keep me alive" then that was probably a bit to strong. i meant do everything that is also needed for everyone else. special treatment that takes an unreasonable effort is not the same thing. if the resource is so limited that it really isn't enough for everyone, then it obviously can not be given to everyone. but if everyone needs it, then they still have a right to it. we…
OK, so you define "human right" as "thing you have a moral duty to do your reasonable best to supply fairly to everyone." The reason I feel strongly that we should use a different term for these, versus by-virtue-of-existing rights like free speech, is that using the same term for both weakens the latter. Free expression, fair trials, etc, are not "best-effort", and belong in a different category. Specifically, it ma…
as far as i understand it, the definition of human rights includes both but that's an extended discussion.
however on your last point, i would argue that despite the difference, free expression or fair trials do also create a duty or responsibility to provide these.
for every right that is given, there exists a duty to provide or enable that right.
it also works the other way around. if it is a duty to send my kids to school, then i have a right to a school within reasonable distance. if it is a duty to work, then i have a right to childcare. etc.
so no matter how you look at it, right and duty are intertwined and can not be separated.