“Need” and similar words like “necessity”, “necessary” are a group of the most heavily abused terms in the English language, like “free”. Here’s some examples on SN as to how it’s used.
[khallow:] They would gain serious opposition throughout the world by alienating a bunch of developing world countries who need that food.
Here, the poster (me) is saying that they believe that certain unnamed countries “need that food”. I later elaborate that “need” means “Egypt would be a smoking ruin, if it ran low on wheat and it's far from the most unstable in that regard.” Here, “need” means must have or some societies, including Egypt, would fall apart into ruin, if they didn’t have enough food. Even if one disagrees with the claim, it’s a fairly honest use of the word. A good is “needed” when there’s an extremely undesirable outcome, if the need is not met.
[AC:] So there's no problem if the food you're making out of the insects etc is from squashed versions.
If you need to do other stuff (like remove the poop etc) then just squash the head really fast.
Here, “need” has a different meaning: an essential step in some process. AC doesn’t specify what the process could be, but it could be mandated by regulation or even merely that the food tastes better without the poop. But the idea is that if bug poop is to be removed, this approach is a way to do that.
Now, let’s consider a couple of less honest uses of “need”.
[AC:] A mega constellation isn't a necessary step or a necessarily shorter path to a future in space.
Here, the word being abused is “necessary/necessarily”. The complaint in question is that megaconstellations have significant externalities – light pollution and possibly space junk. The implication here is that because a megaconstellation isn’t necessary – there are other unspecified ways to a future in space, then it shouldn’t be done.
There’s two flaws in the argument. First, just because something isn’t needed, doesn’t mean we should be blocking it. Another space example is someone arguing that nobody wants to go to space because the speaker doesn't want to go to space.
Second, when a destination is necessary, then so is a path. For example, suppose a kid needs to go home (it’s getting late) and there are two physical paths to their house. A neighbor turns the kid away from the first path because they can go the other way – with the argument that the kid doesn’t need to go down this path (and presumably irk said neighbor). So then another irkable neighbor at the second path does the same, because the kid doesn’t need to travel down that path either since they could travel down the first path. Now, we’ve gone from two paths home to zero paths home!
This is how the need argument can sabotage not just one endeavor, but all of them. There is no path to space that won’t create a bunch of stuff in orbit and engender the externalities, and where there are so many possible paths to space not a one of them is the unique, necessary path.
Finally, there’s the completely bogus use of “need” that spurred this journal. I’ll quote it in context from the original story here [edit: fixed typo].
Ruiter says he’s continued to talk about data centers because he wants to remind people that “the cloud” they’ve come to rely on isn’t just an ethereal concept—it’s something that has a physical manifestation, here in the farmland of North Holland. He worries that growing demand for data storage from people, and also, increasingly, AI, will just mean more and more hyperscale facilities.
“Of course, we need some data centers,” he says. But he wants us to talk about restructuring the way the internet works so they are not so necessary. “We should be having the philosophical debate of what do we do with all our data? I don’t think we need to store everything online in a central place.”
Basically, Ruiter is a politician mooching off Dutch farmer discontent over harsh EU nitrogen regulations which then boiled over to complaints about data centers (which I gather politically are a vastly safer target) which are competing for the same land as the farmers. And he advocates that we restructure Netherlands society so that data centers “are not so necessary”. All this for a naked self-interest – less competition for Dutch farmland. Note also the process would result in significantly fewer data centers and thus a centralization of all that data contrary to the alleged benefit of the scheme. He threw out an excuse for this, ignoring that the scheme would make the excuse worse not better.
This is the cynical, entitled endpoint of the rhetoric of need: you don’t need this so gimme. No cost to society is too high. Just restructure society so it doesn’t need what I stole from it. I find it interesting how so many people are intent on reenacting those cheesy Ayn Rand novels – not as a ruggedly individual John Galt, but as a sleazy, corrupt Wesley Mouch.
The rhetoric of need
Case 1:
Here, the poster (me) is saying that they believe that certain unnamed countries “need that food”. I later elaborate that “need” means “Egypt would be a smoking ruin, if it ran low on wheat and it's far from the most unstable in that regard.” Here, “need” means must have or some societies, including Egypt, would fall apart into ruin, if they didn’t have enough food. Even if one disagrees with the claim, it’s a fairly honest use of the word. A good is “needed” when there’s an extremely undesirable outcome, if the need is not met.
Case 2:
Here, “need” has a different meaning: an essential step in some process. AC doesn’t specify what the process could be, but it could be mandated by regulation or even merely that the food tastes better without the poop. But the idea is that if bug poop is to be removed, this approach is a way to do that.
Now, let’s consider a couple of less honest uses of “need”.
Case 3:
Here, the word being abused is “necessary/necessarily”. The complaint in question is that megaconstellations have significant externalities – light pollution and possibly space junk. The implication here is that because a megaconstellation isn’t necessary – there are other unspecified ways to a future in space, then it shouldn’t be done.
There’s two flaws in the argument. First, just because something isn’t needed, doesn’t mean we should be blocking it. Another space example is someone arguing that nobody wants to go to space because the speaker doesn't want to go to space.
Second, when a destination is necessary, then so is a path. For example, suppose a kid needs to go home (it’s getting late) and there are two physical paths to their house. A neighbor turns the kid away from the first path because they can go the other way – with the argument that the kid doesn’t need to go down this path (and presumably irk said neighbor). So then another irkable neighbor at the second path does the same, because the kid doesn’t need to travel down that path either since they could travel down the first path. Now, we’ve gone from two paths home to zero paths home!
This is how the need argument can sabotage not just one endeavor, but all of them. There is no path to space that won’t create a bunch of stuff in orbit and engender the externalities, and where there are so many possible paths to space not a one of them is the unique, necessary path.
Finally, there’s the completely bogus use of “need” that spurred this journal. I’ll quote it in context from the original story here [edit: fixed typo].
Case 4:
Basically, Ruiter is a politician mooching off Dutch farmer discontent over harsh EU nitrogen regulations which then boiled over to complaints about data centers (which I gather politically are a vastly safer target) which are competing for the same land as the farmers. And he advocates that we restructure Netherlands society so that data centers “are not so necessary”. All this for a naked self-interest – less competition for Dutch farmland. Note also the process would result in significantly fewer data centers and thus a centralization of all that data contrary to the alleged benefit of the scheme. He threw out an excuse for this, ignoring that the scheme would make the excuse worse not better.
This is the cynical, entitled endpoint of the rhetoric of need: you don’t need this so gimme. No cost to society is too high. Just restructure society so it doesn’t need what I stole from it. I find it interesting how so many people are intent on reenacting those cheesy Ayn Rand novels – not as a ruggedly individual John Galt, but as a sleazy, corrupt Wesley Mouch.
Post Comment