Back in yr9, some of our teachers had organised a class debate to do with our ecological footprints and something happened that day that I remember very clearly. And ever since then, it has passed through as a train of thought every now and then.
 
Heres how it goes: Elle mentioned living in the wild and drinking from fountains and eating berries or something, because it helped the environment by not polluting and saving resources and all that, and by living that way we basically had all we needed. Right? Right. And then somebody brought up the topic: NEEDS vs WANTS.


1. If you only want it and you don't really NEED it, then forget it, it's increasing our ecological footprint as we speak, purge yourselves immediately of the idea. So just forgo your petty "want".


It hit a strange note in my mind. If you can imagine suddenly experiencing an epiphany -ping!- back straightens, chin goes up, and I take a look at who it was that proposed the relation between needs and wants.

I didnt speak up at the time, cause 1. it didnt seem all that relevant, and 2. im sure they put a lot of thought into making their point, not nice to shoot them down (unless its a teacher bwahaha, jon)
but anyway, I realised that the relationship between needs and wants that they explained was all wrong. Need sprung from the loins of Want.

Recall that old Network Ten motto:
"Want entertainment? ...Need Ten"
"Want drama? ...need Ten" and so on

It's put simply enough by that. If you want something, then a need will arise to fulfill that desire.
But it's just that everybody assumes that everybody wants to live, so needs have become implicative of the things that you need to live.

But if you just wanted to eat something, then there would be a need to open that snickers bar (really satisfies). Or if you wanted that -cough- ENTER score, you 
would need to study hard. Right?