Talk:Manfred Max-Neef's Fundamental human needs

Table placement
The table ought to appear above the References section, but I don't know how to make that happen. Brian Jason Drake 08:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section
There should be one. The comment below may be a critcism of the article, rather than the subject. It is not mine.

'Speaking of the table, it introduces a contradiction in the article. "Leisure" is listed as one of nine needs, but the article lists eight needs and states that "Contrary to popular belief, recreation is not considered a fundamental human need."'

I would add my criticism of the subject that 'work' appears in several of the 36 cells. This this surprising, because work is an indirect way of getting nutrition via money and thence food. It may also provide things like purpose, mastery, autonomy [cf Daniel Pink] and opportunities for companionship, fellowship and the like, but these things can logically all be got from other sources, so 'work' is not fundamental as it reduces to other attributes/components.
 * About your last remark that work is not fundamental: the article is about fundamental needs, not about fundamental actions, so work doesn't need to be fundamental to deserve a place in the table.  Lova Falk     talk   09:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

More perspectives
It would be nice to see more perspectives included in this page, like from the work of Tony Robbins and Cloe Madanes, Abraham Maslow, and so on. This page, insofar, seems to reflect the work of only one institute and leader.

To further this point, it should be noted that this topic may never meet the satisfactory condition of neutrality; in accordance with such, fundamental human needs requisite an understanding of human mental and physical states which, -- as well as other factors -- admittedly yet unsolved in the Mind-Body Problem, serve to propagate a non-neutral view requisite the topic of this article.

availability of key text
The main reference on which this article depends is no longer at the location given, on the author's official site. I wonder if this is because of copyright issues? There is one at http://www.area-net.org/fileadmin/user_upload/papers/Max-neef_Human_Scale_development.pdf but it is not at all clear whether this is an authorised copy, freely available, or not. Simon Grant (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sex?
How can it be that this article doesn't even contain the word sex, sexual, or sexuality? Did max-neef just have a massive blind spot?Brinerustle (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

misnamed?
Perhaps this article should be called what it is, "Manfred Max-Neef's theory of fundamental human needs." calling it "fundamental human needs" is misleading.Brinerustle (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Protection - Having - Social Security
This term ("social security" in the "having" column of the "protection" row) seems problematic to me. Given that it's the name of a government program in the US, it has very defined connotations there.

If it's going to be here, a small explanation of what the term means specifically in this context should be shown as well.

I have similar reservations for "health program" as well. These sound excessively political for a scientific subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.6.151 (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

two concerns
"Unlike Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which focuses on a hierarchy of psychological needs, Max-Neef talks about needs that are complementary, all of which are necessary to achieve satisfaction. This proposal for an improved development system can certainly be useful on a small scale and also provides insight into the satisfaction of fundamental human needs by social institutions."

I would like to see the author reframe the first sentence to acknowledge that Maslow intended his hierarchy of needs to reflect an order in time of stages of human development rather than a value judgment on relative importance of needs categories. This encourages perception of consensus/commonality between Maslow's and Max-Neef's approaches rather than contention/conflict.

I would like to see the author reframe the second sentence to acknowledge that Max-Neef and most others would likely reach strong consensus on the need for development systems to be implemented at the small scale (by individuals and very small groups) rather than by social institutions. Individuals must lead the process of meeting their own needs to cover their need for self-determination/self-actualization.

Rtdrury (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)