> Fundamental human needs, according to the school of "Human Scale
> Development" developed by Manfred Max Neef and others (Antonio
> Elizalde and Martin Hopenhayn), are seen as ontological (stemming from
> the condition of being human), are few, finite and classifiable (as
> distinct from the conventional notion of conventional economic "wants"
> that are infinite and insatiable). They are also constant through all
> human cultures and across historical time periods. What changes over
> time and between cultures is the strategies by which these needs are
> satisfied. It is important that human needs are understood as a system
> - i.e. they are interrelated and interactive. In this system, there is
> no hierarchy of needs (apart from the basic need for subsistence or
> survival) as postulated by Western psychologists such as Maslow,
> rather, simultaneity, complementarity and trade-offs are features of
> the process of needs satisfaction.
>
> Manfred Max-Neef and his colleagues developed a taxonomy of human
> needs and a process by which communities can identify their "wealths"
> and "poverties" according to how their fundamental human needs are
> satisfied. ...

>> Needs are also defined according to the existential categories of
>> being, having, doing and interacting, and from these dimensions, a 36
>> cell matrix is developed"

>

>>http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/background/maxneef.htm

>
> Is that like Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

> On Jul 28, 1:17 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>>> Needs are also defined according to the existential categories of
>>> being, having, doing and interacting, and from these dimensions, a 36
>>> cell matrix is developed"

>

>>>http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/background/maxneef.htm

>

>> Is that like Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

>
> No. It's not the same.
>

> "While Maslow's theory was regarded as an improvement over previous
> theories of personality and motivation, it had its detractors. For
> example, in their extensive review of research which is dependent...

> Max-Neef classifies the fundamental human needs as:
>
> subsistence,
> protection,
> affection,
> understanding,
> participation,
> recreation (in the sense of leisure, time to reflect, or idleness),
> creation,
> identity and
> freedom.
>

>> Max-Neef classifies the fundamental human needs as:

>

>> subsistence,
>> protection,
>> affection,
>> understanding,
>> participation,
>> recreation (in the sense of leisure, time to reflect, or idleness),
>> creation,
>> identity and
>> freedom.

>
> Spokes upon a wheel, whereupon, if any spoke is missing, the other spokes
> MUST take up additional load.  I would wager most of us are lopsided.
>
> I once had a theory that we 'learn' from need.   By this, a person of great
> need in any area might become an expert of sorts on that area [requiring
> more focus than others just for minimal returns].  A kid watching on while
> his Mom gets battered by scumbag father might grow up like Batman for ...

>> Max-Neef classifies the fundamental human needs as:

>

>> subsistence,
>> protection,
>> affection,
>> understanding,
>> participation,
>> recreation (in the sense of leisure, time to reflect, or idleness),
>> creation,
>> identity and
>> freedom.

>
> Spokes upon a wheel, whereupon, if any spoke is missing, the other spokes
> MUST take up additional load. I would wager most of us are lopsided.
>
> I once had a theory that we 'learn' from need. By this, a person of great
> need in any area might become an expert of sorts on that area [requiring ...

> Fundamental human needs, according to the school of "Human Scale
> Development" developed by Manfred Max Neef and others (Antonio
> Elizalde and Martin Hopenhayn), are seen as ontological (stemming from
> the condition of being human), are few, finite and classifiable (as
> distinct from the conventional notion of conventional economic "wants"
> that are infinite and insatiable). They are also constant through all
> human cultures and across historical time periods. What changes over
> time and between cultures is the strategies by which these needs are
> satisfied. It is important that human needs are understood as a system
> - i.e. they are interrelated and interactive. In this system, there is
> no hierarchy of needs (apart from the basic need for subsistence or
> survival) as postulated by Western psychologists such as Maslow,
> rather, simultaneity, complementarity and trade-offs are features of
> the process of needs satisfaction.
>
> Manfred Max-Neef and his colleagues developed a taxonomy of human
> needs and a process by which communities can identify their "wealths"
> and "poverties" according to how their fundamental human needs are
> satisfied. ...

> On Jul 27, 10:24 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:
>

>> On Jul 28, 1:17 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>>> Needs are also defined according to the existential categories of
>>>> being, having, doing and interacting, and from these dimensions, a 36
>>>> cell matrix is developed"

>

>>>>http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/background/maxneef.htm

>

>>> Is that like Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

>

>> No. It's not the same.

>
> It makes sense that needs are more like a network of interacting
> relationships. But Maslow does have a point that some needs must be
> met to some degree before other needs can even be considered. If your
> starved you can't think much about sex and love, for instance.
> ...

>> Max-Neef classifies the fundamental human needs as:

>

>> subsistence,
>> protection,
>> affection,
>> understanding,
>> participation,
>> recreation (in the sense of leisure, time to reflect, or idleness),
>> creation,
>> identity and
>> freedom.

>
> Spokes upon a wheel, whereupon, if any spoke is missing, the other spokes
> MUST take up additional load.  I would wager most of us are lopsided.
>
> I once had a theory that we 'learn' from need.   By this, a person of great
> need in any area might become an expert of sorts on that area [requiring
> more focus than others just for minimal returns].  A kid watching on while
> his Mom gets battered by scumbag father might grow up like Batman for ...