November 13

hi, ahead of water and food, even ahead of the air to breathe (see Maslow's hierarchy of needs, physiological needs), there are just a very few conditions of the surrounding need to be met for a living organism to even subsist in its mere shape: 1) air-pressure (or water-pressure resp.) 2) air/water-temperature 3) absence of deadly radiation. Completely different from that is 4) the need to also get rid of what food and drink could not be used by the metabolism. - None of the need theories mentionned under the above's "See also" mention these most primary needs. I'm sure, they appear in articles about planet colonization or astronaut's wear rather than in need-theories concerned about motivation by needs very much too. Yet, they may be mentionned in how they are really very "primary", maybe? --217.84.65.27 (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a homework assignment, those "other" needs are in no way distinct from physiological/survival needs, and many creatures (for their continued survival) hoard food and water they don't need right now for later (speaking of which, there's some Egg foo young leftover from last night calling me). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"distinct"? What makes You read "distinct", where it says "ahead of (air, water, food)" and "most primary (needs)" and "really very primary"? --217.84.110.65 (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that they should also be considered primary needs and asking if others agree with that statement? Are you asking why they are not included in the hierarchy of primary needs? What is your question exactly? Contact Basemetal here 18:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What You said. ("Yet, they may be mentionned in how they are really very "primary", maybe?"). I'm not putting it into the article Which article? - Maslow dindn't reckon for this, and the article depicts his theory, not "primary needs" in the first place. cos' it just struck me, so I have no sources whatsoever which makes it original research but obvious fact, that humans don't bear air- or water temperatures over 100°C and the mere body will not suffer lack of or immense air-pressures or extreme radiation (quasar gamma-ray-burst, jet). So even before you lack the air to breathe, in a vacuum your body will explode almost instantly. The need for an astronaut to fix his suit even prior to the need to fix his air-supply. This is extreme conditions, okay, but It reflects, how we as organisms depend not only on air to breath, food and water, but also - call it: "cosmic" conditions to be met in order to exist. Like, in Maslows pyramid, they would be below the current basis in signal-red and bigger basis of the pyramid. So maybe some expert will want to complete any theory of needs, who knows about sources or how it fits in an article not describing a theory that doesn't account for these. --217.84.110.65 (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I have the feeling this would be more appropriate for the Science Desk. Contact Basemetal here 18:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And no. It might sound scientific ("air-pressure, temperature, astronauts, vacuum" aso.; "negentropic shape", see below), but it puts humans into their "cosmic context", we are not only biochemical metabolic machines in our roots as (multi-cellular) organisms in a granted egg-shell-atmosphere on a blue planet, but also mere negentropic (shaped in an ordered, structured way opposed to, say, chaotic growth or bodyless molecule-soup) .. negentropic formed and shaped, coherent bodies with even these more basic needs to be fulfilled on a planet - in a solar-system in cosmos. The several articles about need theories simply all lack mentionning these even more basic needs. --217.84.110.65 (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth I don't see the needs you mention above as being outside, or more basic, than Maslow's physiological needs. They are simply part of the physiological needs. The physiological needs are those that have to be filled if the organism is to continue living. The requirements you mention as to pressure, temperature, absence of radiation are on a par and can be expanded with say the need to have air to breathe (which the article mentions), the need to be protected from infection (not to catch Ebola, or malaria), the need to not have deadly substances injected into your organism (be it snake or spider venom, arsenic, lead, or whatever) or put into contact with your skin (e.g. acids, so the need to not be dropped in a vat full of hydrochloric acid), the need to not be whacked on the head with a sledgehammer, the need to not have your throat cut, or the need to not be caught in a large piece of machinery or a large microwave oven, etc. As to the need to get rid of bodily wastes (unless you think of that as the need to not have someone actively block your urinary and digestive tracts at the point where bodily wastes are supposed to be gotten rid of) that's just an instance of a general need to have your organism in good working order so that it doesn't die. Other instances are the need to not develop tumors, the need to not develop diabetes and maintain appropriate glucose level, the need to not develop uremia, the need to have kidneys, liver, etc. in good working order, etc. I don't think you have discovered another tier of needs. I just think the needs you mention are part of the basic physiological needs. Contact Basemetal here 09:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Partly agreed: It's difficult to draw a line between "cosmic primary conditions for living organisms to survive" and "physiological needs". Still some examples, You mention are questions of health - "the absence of ebola-virus or lethal acid vats" for humans subsisting in a solar-system not as urgent as physical living-conditions in like colonizing mars or living in a spaceship for generations. I just had the impression, that ahead of air to breath, water and food, an atmosphere, the egg-shell we live on are necessary in the first place and simply taken as granted by need-theories. Maybe need-theories are focussed on individuals (furthermmore in a in social context), rather than on mankind or organisms in general. However - I gave the hint, we can leave it at that, if you want. --217.84.90.80 (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are Missouri state circuit court rulings binding on the entire state or just a single circuit..? Prcc27 (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on State court (United States), which doesn't address the issue directly, but from reading that article I get the gist that the rulings of all state courts are binding within the entire state. The organization of a state court system into districts or circuits is for convenience only; there is only one set of laws for the whole state, and thus the courts are working under the same set of laws; and their decisions apply to the whole state. --Jayron32 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the point of circuit courts was originally that they traveled a circuit to hear cases, so that people like farmers in faraway places could at least plead a case once a year in a nearby town rather than having to spend months away from their business or livelihood traveling and waiting to be heard. Nowadays the term is retained, but like Jayron says, they simply serve a district as a matter of convenience. One can't try a case in one circuit then retry it in a second circuit in the same system. But see also jurisdiction shopping. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Missouri circuit courts are trial courts, and their rulings do not establish binding precedent. I believe the responses above may be conflating the concepts of stare decisis and res judicata. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Or the responses above may (erroneously) be treating Missouri state circuit courts the same as US federal circuit courts. They are two completely different things. In the US federal system, the word "circuit court" refers to an appellate court (or, rather, several different appellate courts). In the Missouri state system, the word "circuit court" refers to a trial court (or, rather, several different trial courts). Trial courts and appellate courts are two very different things. They have completely different power and authority. An appellate court (whether state or federal) can set binding precedent that must be followed. A trial court (whether state or federal) cannot. So, in this discussion, the term "circuit court" has two very different meanings, as related to the power and authority of the US federal circuit court versus the Missouri state circuit court. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP didn't specify binding precedent. While ambiguous, it seemed to be asking whether an actual ruling would have no force in another circuit. Under the latter assumption it would, unless appealed to and overturned by some higher court. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read (interpreted) the OP's question differently than you did. I took the question to mean: if a ruling (rule of law) comes out of Circuit Court District #1, does that ruling (rule of law) also apply in District #2, #3, etc. (all the other districts in the state). My interpretation is that the OP is asking about "binding precedent", without actually coming out and using that exact phrase. I don't believe that the OP is essentially asking a "full faith and credit"-type of question. In other words, I did not think that the OP was asking: "If I obtain a ruling in District #1, does the rest of the state (the other districts) also have to honor (abide by) that ruling?". Who knows? Maybe the OP can clarify what they are asking. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I never even saw the full faith and credit question since the key word that would have teed it up (judgment) wasn't in the question. Had the OP asked if circuit court rulings were binding "in" (rather than "on") all other circuits, or whether they had effect "throughout" the state, I might have thought differently as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An aside to those who read this section: please see my somewhat related question below on this page. This is the link: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Binding precedence of a legal case. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]