I've been thinking of using this contradiction as a more universal example relevant to all animals or plants. We must nutrate ourselves, otherwise we can't gain necessary nutrients required to survive.
It depends. You've got dialectics that represent contradictory forces. Fascism versus Marxism Leninism. Position versus Speed in the subatomic world. And you've got dialectics that represent presence and absence of a force. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. Void versus phenomena. Starvation versus saturation seems this type of dialectic. Add it in!
I think so, yes. If we keep to a simple definition of both based on absence or presence of nutrients in sufficient (or insufficient) quantities, starvation is clearly diametrically opposed to saturation. One cannot exist without the other either as our bodies process nutrients and require eventual refilling.
It also denotes a process of change: you were hungry (lacking nutrients, again for simplicity), you ate, now you are not hungry. But you will be again.
I'm in agreement with both.
Starvation><Saturation can also be used as an example of qualitative and quantitative contradictions; Starvation><Saturation is qualitative, because it is affected by the quantitative contradiction of the amount of nutrients.
Also, it can be used as an example for primary and second contradictions. Starvation & Saturation manifests as a result of the change in nutrients, so the quantitative contradiction of nutrients can be thought of as a primary contradiction, while Starvation><Saturation can be thought of as a secondary contradiction.