Needless Extravagance

Evo Morales, the President of Bolivia, was on the Daily Show last night. During the interview President Morales said that one of the detrimental aspects of Western Culture is "Needless Extravagance". Ignoring the fact that "needless" extravagance is a redundant phrase, the idea itself has been bothering me. At first one's reaction is that Needless Extravagance is, of course, needless. So we certainly ought to rid ourselves of it. But then when one thinks about this in any manner they ought to arrive at the question, "What is needless?"

Extravagance is an odd notion. To understand it one must first quantify "need" for one cannot know what is needless before one knows what it needed. But need can only be quantified in a context. Need occurs "for some end". For example, to stay alive humans need food, water, shelter, etc. To travel 30 miles quickly one needs a car. But if one denies that context of keeping humans alive or travel the need disappears. So in order to assess what is needed one must first assess which contexts are needed.

That's where I am stuck. Because there is no fundamental starting point of need or necessity. We pick and choose the contexts about which we care. And why ought one context of necessity be more necessary than another if necessity is itself subjective?

We can certainly be extravagant within a context in which we have defined need. If we define one car as necessary then any additional cars are extravagant. But what supports our claim that one car is necessary? Why are two cars not necessary? Why would the arguments for either position have merit?

Apply this to any subject: Do human beings need pets?
P: Well, human beings need companionship and pets can provide companionship.
C: Do human beings need companionship?
P: Companionship makes people happy.
C: Yes, but do human beings need to be happy?
P: Certainly!
C: Really?

Most arguments of this manner will result in a person proclaiming a fundamental assumption to be true despite arguments or questions to the contrary. Since fundamental assumptions cannot be proven it creates quite a problem for anyone who desires to attain non-contextual truth with regard for need.

C: But why do we need a non-contextual truth?
P: Because truths which are contextual can be contested and are only significant within their contexts.
C: But is that problematic?
P: Yes.
C: Why?
P: See the discussion we are having.

Needless Extravagance sounds like a phrase which means something. And, yes, people can argue for or against need in any context. But if you really think about it? They're really just arguing fundamental assumptions. And those are mostly meaningless except to the people to whom they have meaning.
C: Really?
P: Yes.
C: But I don't agree.
P: Exactly.