Institute for the Study of Complex Systems
  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
    • Publications List, 1969-2025
    • Books
      • Synergistic Selection: How Cooperation Has Shaped Evolution and the Rise of Humankind
      • The Fair Society: The Science of Human Nature and the Pursuit of Social Justice
      • Holistic Darwinism: Synergy, Cybernetics, and the Bioeconomics of Evolution
      • The Synergism Hypothesis: A Theory of Progressive Evolution
      • Nature’s Magic
    • Online Publications
    • Outtakes
    • Essays on Social Justice
    • Commentaries
    • Book Reviews
  • Topics
    • Emergence
    • Evolution
    • Information Theory
    • Social Justice
    • Synergistic Selection
    • Synergy
    • Thermodynamics
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
    • Publications List, 1969-2025
    • Books
      • Synergistic Selection: How Cooperation Has Shaped Evolution and the Rise of Humankind
      • The Fair Society: The Science of Human Nature and the Pursuit of Social Justice
      • Holistic Darwinism: Synergy, Cybernetics, and the Bioeconomics of Evolution
      • The Synergism Hypothesis: A Theory of Progressive Evolution
      • Nature’s Magic
    • Online Publications
    • Outtakes
    • Essays on Social Justice
    • Commentaries
    • Book Reviews
  • Topics
    • Emergence
    • Evolution
    • Information Theory
    • Social Justice
    • Synergistic Selection
    • Synergy
    • Thermodynamics
  • Blog
  • Contact

The “Economic Bill of Rights” and Our “Basic Needs”

By Peter Corning • May 29, 2015

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his January 1944 “State-of-the-Union” speech, called for an “Economic Bill of Rights” which included a list of specific goals.  As Roosevelt explained it:

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. ‘Necessitous men are not free men.’ People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.  In our day these economic truths have become self-evident.  We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis for security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed.

Roosevelt’s objective was to secure lasting freedom from the deep, pervasive poverty and economic insecurity that had enveloped the world during the global depression of the 1930s.  In effect, Roosevelt was spelling out in more specific detail two of the “Four Freedoms” that he had called for in an earlier (1941) speech, namely, freedom from “want” and freedom from “fear”.  Roosevelt identified eight categories of economic rights, ranging from guaranteed employment at a decent wage to good housing, adequate medical care, and protection from the “fears” of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.  Needless to say, in the seventy years since Roosevelt made this historic speech, none of these rights has been universally attained in this country.  Indeed, there has been much back-sliding since the 1970s.

In my 2011 book, The Fair Society: The Science of Human Nature and the Pursuit of Social Justice (University of Chicago Press), I called for a universal “basic needs guarantee” that represents, in effect, a modernized, biologically-grounded and more comprehensive response to FDR’s objective.  What I call the “Fair Society Model” identifies no less than fourteen categories, or “domains” of basic needs that are viewed as absolute requisites for a healthy, productive life, as well as for reproducing and nurturing the next generation.  This framework was backed by several years of empirical research at the Institute for the Study of Complex Systems, along with the social indicators work of other international, U.S. government, and private agencies.  These needs are:

  1. Adequate nutrition
  2. Fresh water
  3. Physical safety
  4. Physical health
  5. Mental health
  6. Waste elimination
  7. Thermoregulation (body temperature)
  8. Mobility
  9. Healthy respiration
  10. Adequate sleep
  11. Reciprocal Communications (information exchange)
  12. Positive social relationships
  13. Reproduction
  14. Nurturance of offspring

Several brief comments are in order about this framework.  First, the term “basic need” is used in a strictly biological-adaptive sense as: a requisite for the continued functioning of an organism in a given environmental context; that is, a denial of this need would significantly reduce the organism’s ability to carry on productive activities and/or reduce the probability of its continued survival and successful reproduction.  So defined, basic needs are not unique to humans; the term applies to all living things.  Moreover, the term “need” connotes a requisite where significant harm will occur if it is lacking or absent.  To repeat, the nature of this harm is defined in strictly biological rather than moral terms — i.e., in terms of “normal functioning” and the “productivity” required for a person to be able to effectively pursue their ongoing daily lives and activities.

A second point is that the concept of basic needs is not interpreted here in a narrow, physiological sense.  Like other paradigms in this field, it also recognizes that the survival enterprise in humankind by its very nature is a social activity that entails cognitive/ psychological needs and a need for social relationships and interactions of various kinds; many of our needs are satisfied through socially-organized activities and socially-defined tasks.  Equally important, this paradigm recognizes that basic needs have a life-cycle — a trajectory which includes growth and development, reproduction, child nurturance and aging.  Accordingly, satisfying these needs for any given society necessarily cuts a very broad swath through its economy and social institutions.

A third point is that this paradigm involves a highly nuanced concept of basic needs.  In particular, a distinction is drawn between (1) primary needs, (2) instrumental needs, (3) perceived needs, (4) dependencies, and (5) wants (or tastes and preferences).  Basic needs refer only to the first two of these categories (primary and instrumental needs).  Primary needs are irreducible and non-substitutable (though some categories involve an array of components — nutrition being an obvious example).  Thus, one cannot substitute food for water, or mobility for sleep.  All are necessary.  Instrumental needs, on the other hand, are the derived adaptive means.  For instance, we have a physiological need for a defined quantity of uncontaminated fresh water (a “primary need”), as well as an “instrumental need” both for a source of fresh water and for appropriate technologies to obtain the water and satisfy this primary need.  Thus, instrumental needs may vary widely, depending on the particular context.

It is also important to distinguish between our basic needs and our so-called drives, or internal sources of motivation.  Needs are functional requirements; drives are psychological mechanisms that we may perceive as needs.  The distinction between the two concepts (need versus drive) is clearly evident, in different ways, both in the practice of birth control and in artificial insemination, where sex and reproduction are decoupled.  By the same token, a person may eat either more or less than is nutritionally-necessary in response to the promptings of hunger.  The litmus test for a primary need, according to this formulation, has nothing to do with whether or not the need is reflected in our psychological motivations or “preferences” (although most are).  Nor does it matter that our primary needs vary — as they do in systematic ways that are increasingly well understood.  More important is the fact that, to reiterate, they are directly linked to the potential for suffering “harm” in the strict biological/survival sense.  The fourteen basic needs domains listed above represent an irreducible and indispensable requirement for biological adaptation/fitness in the human species.

A special word is also in order here regarding the role of income as an instrument for basic needs-satisfaction.  Income is often used as a surrogate social indicator, but there are many problems associated with this approach, and various theorists over the years have argued against the use of an income-based measure of well-being.  On the other hand, income is also a necessary prerequisite (a means) for meeting basic needs in a great many human societies, as numerous social theorists have recognized.  Income is therefore highly relevant as an instrumental need, even though it is inadequate as a summary measure of primary needs-satisfaction, much less of well-being or happiness.

Some of these fourteen primary needs domains may seem to be self-evident.  Many of them can be found on other lists of basic needs.  (We are not, after all, venturing into uncharted territory.)  Other needs may appear to be puzzling or vague (or controversial) and may call for some elaboration.  In actuality, there are complications with every one of these needs, some of which are viewed very differently from more conventional treatments.  It should also be stressed that these fourteen needs categories are not ad hoc or arbitrary, but neither do they have the status of Mosaic law. The framework remains open to challenge and revision at any time if more, or fewer, or different, needs categories can be justified.  (Further elaboration about this paradigm can be found in The Fair Society.)

An Agenda for Reform

Some countries in today’s world have more or less fully realized Roosevelt’s vision and the “basic needs guarantee” associated with the Fair Society Model, with cradle-to-the-grave economic and social security for all of its citizens.  The premier example, perhaps, is Norway, which consistently ranks number one, or nearly so, in the United Nations’ Human Development Index.  However, the United States, once the leader in providing economic security to its people, now ranks well down the list of advanced industrial countries.

However, this is not our inevitable fate.  The U.S. could once again become a leader in providing for the “general welfare” of its citizens.  We have more than enough wealth to do so.  To this end, below is a “shopping list” of reform measures that could move the country in this direction, including many policies and programs that already exist but which are not universally available, or that do not currently provide adequate benefits.  These measures include the following:

  • A government backed full-employment program at a livable wage (a mandate that was removed from the FDR-inspired Employment Act of 1946).
  • A minimum wage that is gradually increased to correspond to a living wage (augmented if necessary by subsidies such as a rebate of payroll taxes that would be passed through to employees).
  • Universal health insurance – including mental health services — with adequate coverage at an affordable price (and at an affordable cost to the nation).
  • Universal paid sick leave.
  • Augmentation of the current coverage and benefit levels in existing social insurance programs.
  • Enhanced job training and work skills training.
  • Upgraded secondary school education.
  • A return to more affordable higher education (while lifting the debilitating burden of student indebtedness).
  • Affordable, secure housing with adequate public utilities to ensure the availability of fresh water, sewage and waste disposal, electrical power, internet access, heating and cooling as needed.
  • Readily accessible public transportation services.
  • Universal prenatal care, reproductive services, well baby care, family leaves for childbirth, and family allowances to subsidize the extra costs for newborns.
  • Universal child care services provided by professionals.
  • Universal pre-school education.
  • Universal end-of-life nursing and hospice care and burial services.

If many Americans would call this a utopian pipe-dream, it is because we lack the political vision and the power of an organized mass-movement to overcome the entrenched corporate power that dominates American politics today.  What some other capitalist countries have achieved – call it “stakeholder capitalism” – is only utopian in the U.S. because we have not mobilized the collective will to make it happen.  Achieving an Economic Bill of Rights with a basic needs guarantee is the great progressive challenge for the 21st century.

Category: Publications

Evolution ‘On Purpose’: Teleonomy in Living Systems

Evolution ‘On Purpose’: Teleonomy in Living Systems

In this volume, a number of biologists and philosophers of science, greatly expand on the thesis that “teleonomy” (“internal” purposiveness and goal-directedness) is a unique and important property of living organisms and that it has exerted a major influence over the course of evolutionary history.

Superorganism

Superorganism

As evidence of our global survival crisis continues to mount, the expression “too little, too late” comes to mind. We all live in an interdependent world which has an increasingly shared fate. We are participants in an emerging global “superorganism” that is dependent on close cooperation.

Synergistic Selection

Synergistic Selection Book Cover

Synergistic Selection is being hailed as a major contribution to what is perhaps the greatest shift in our understanding of evolution since The Origin of Species. As Corning puts it: “Nothing about the evolution of biological complexity makes sense except in the light of synergy.... One of the great take-home lessons from the epic of evolution is that cooperation produces synergy, and synergy is the way forward. The arc of evolution bends toward synergy.”

The Fair Society

The Fair Society

The Fair Society calls for a new social contract based on three biologically-grounded fairness principles – equality in relation to our “basic needs,” equity in providing rewards for merit, and reciprocity to repay the benefits we receive from others and society.

Holistic Darwinism

Holistic Darwinism Book Cover

Calls for a paradigm shift, a refocusing of evolutionary biology to address the rise of complex systems over time and their emergence as distinct units of selection, with special reference to the causal role of synergy, thermodynamics, information theory, and the bioeconomic influences underlying evolutionary change.

Nature’s Magic

Nature's Way Book Cover

Nature’s Magic presents a bold new vision of the evolutionary process – from the Big Bang to the 21st century. Synergy of various kinds is not only a ubiquitous aspect of the natural world but it has also been a wellspring of creativity and the “driver” of the broad evolutionary trend toward increased complexity, in nature and in human societies alike.

Synergism Hypothesis

Synergism Hypothesis Book Cover

A major causal theory of complexity in evolution at all levels, based on the functional advantages arising from synergistic effects of varying kinds.

Copyright Notice

All of the papers included at this site have previously been copyrighted in various print media, including (mostly) professional conference proceedings and scholarly journals. These may not be reproduced for commercial purposes without prior authorization. "Commentaries" by ISCS associates will also be posted from time to time. These will include more informal "op-ed" material (and some short items for various publications) on complexity and complex systems, including applications to contemporary economic, social and political concerns.

Navigation

  • About the Director
  • Complex Systems Blog
  • Contact
  • Evolution ‘On Purpose’: Teleonomy in Living Systems 
  • Evolution and the Fate of Humankind
  • Publications List, 1969-2025
  • Superorganism
  • Topics

Peter on Twitter

Tweets by @@Peter_Corning

Recent Posts

  • UNITE OR DIE 1.
  • UNITE OR DIE  2.
  • UNITE OR DIE 3. 
  • UNITE OR DIE 4.
  • UNITE OR DIE 5.
  • A Flawed New Dawn
Copyright © 2015 Institute for the Study of Complex Systems
All rights reserved
Website support provided by Tadpole Graphics