5 ms·

In a world where no one is compelled to work more than four hours a day, every person possessed of scientific curiosity will be able to indulge it, and every pa

In a world where no one is compelled to work more than four hours a day, every person possessed of scientific curiosity will be able to indulge it, and every painter will be able to paint without starving, however excellent his pictures may be. Young writers will not be obliged to draw attention to themselves by sensational pot-boilers, with a view to acquiring the economic independence needed for monumental works, for which, when the time at last comes, they will have lost the taste and capacity. Men who, in their professional work, have become interested in some phase of economics or government, will be able to develop their ideas without the academic detachment that makes the work of university economists often seem lacking in reality. Medical men will have the time to learn about the progress of medicine, teachers will not be exasperatedly struggling to teach by routine methods things which they learnt in their youth, which may, in the interval, have been proved to be untrue. -- Bertrand Russell http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

TuringTest 8y ago
I've always felt that "In Praise of Idleness" would be the basis of the fictional post-scarcity economy of Star Trek (and it's likely that this essay influenced the screenwriters). IMHO the first step to build an economic system where people work in a project because they want to, and not because they need to, is to defuse the protestant ethics that measure the worth of people based on how much they earn. Russell's ideas could underline a new ethics that optimized the economy around what people likes to do the most, in special if the most unpleasant jobs can be automated away by robots.
- msla 8y ago
  > I've always felt that "In Praise of Idleness" would be the basis of the fictional post-scarcity economy of Star Trek (and it's likely that this essay influenced the screenwriters). The "problem" is that Star Trek has always been about the adventure at the frontier, with a quasi-military (and precisely how quasi varying based on series) organization exploring new worlds, meeting new civilizations, and fighting with well-known civilizations the Federation is currently struggling against. Very little time is devoted to the people at home actually living that post-scarcity existence. (And, no, I don't see that as a problem. I like adventure-oriented Star Trek. It just means that these ideas have little relevance to that show.)
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  > The protestant ethics that measure the worth of people based on how much they earn. Curious how you got this idea lodged in your head. There are so many examples that refute it that it's hard to know where to start. There are other prominent cultures which are much more concerned with displays of wealth than protestants (Chinese, for example). And then there are sub-cultures within the U.S. that are also more concerned with displays of wealth (watch some rap videos). And, generally speaking, my life experience is that more devout -> less concerned with material wealth. Then there's the protestant sect (Calvinists) who split from the Catholics because they believed in predestination, which would rule out how much you earn as a path to moral worth (in addition to good works).
  - TuringTest 8y ago
    I think I haven't explained myself well. I was not referring to exhibition of wealth, but to the effort required to earn a living. Mesuring personal worth in terms of wealth would be a by-product of this, as a signal that you are being righteous and disciplined. I.e. I was talking about the Lutheran work ethic, which considers hard work and frugality virtuous, and leisure and munificence as moral failures. Other cultures think of free time, and expending on oneself and loved ones, as esencial to enjoy life.
wallflower 8y ago
If you are interested in this concept, take a look at Marshall Brain’s “Manna”. https://marshallbrain.com/manna.htm https://marshallbrain.com/manna.htm
carapace 8y ago
"Let the robots do the work and we'll take their pay." - - - - Cf. "What Are People For?" by Wendell Berry
sunshinelackof 8y ago
I'd go even further to suggest that idleness itself has value and doesn't need be justified by the belief that a mind with fewer external stressors is more productive. It's only worth clarification because the idea of "wanting, but not needing" to work is incredibly foreign and through our current lens can only be interpreted as "needing to work, but enjoying it more."
alexhutcheson 8y ago
Unfortunately in practice it seems that people have actually responded to increased leisure time by dramatically increasing the amount of time they spend watching TV. That's certainly not true for everyone, but I think most people need some external impetus or accountability to make progress and stay on track towards their goals.
- wes-k 8y ago
  Really? Where are you getting this from? I suspect that may be true for ephemeral leisure time or the little leisure time most people have. Give the average person a 20/hr work week and I’d assume they won’t fill the time with more tv.
- perfunctory 8y ago
  The pleasures of urban populations have become mainly passive: seeing cinemas, watching football matches, listening to the radio, and so on. This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work; if they had more leisure, they would again enjoy pleasures in which they took an active part. -- Bertrand Russell http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html
- alexashka 8y ago
  Maybe watching tv is their goal, for the time being. If they were given an opportunity to travel the world, most would gladly take it. Having free time isn't of much use if it isn't coupled with resources to do interesting things. Since most people have very limited resources - tv is the best bang for your buck way of spending the time.
toasterlovin 8y ago
This is a lovely idea, but completely incompatible with biology (like other utopian ideals). The evolutionarily stable outcome is for everybody to use all of their available time to compete with each other for access to resources. It doesn't matter if we could all subsist (even at what is, by all measures, a historically opulent level) on 4 hours/day of work. To start, some people will work more to get more. Eventually all people will work more just to get enough. And that's just the logic of existing in an environment of abundance. The larger issue is that abundance doesn't last. Resources quickly become scarce because populations grow to the environment's carrying capacity.
- perfunctory 8y ago
  Working week of 40 hours once also seemed utopian and yet here we have it. And it didn't lead to economic ruin. I don't see why we can't reduce it even further. "Most countries in the developed world have seen average hours worked decrease significantly.[14][15] For example, in the U.S in the late 19th century it was estimated that the average work week was over 60 hours per week.[16] Today the average hours worked in the U.S. is around 33,[17] with the average man employed full-time for 8.4 hours per work day, and the average woman employed full-time for 7.9 hours per work day.[18] The front runners for lowest average weekly work hours are the Netherlands with 27 hours,[19] and France with 30 hours.[20] At current rates the Netherlands is set to become the first country to reach an average work week under 21 hours" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    We’ve also had three entire continents to take population pressure off of Europe for the last several hundred years. We’ll see what happens now that the Americas and Australia are pretty well settled.
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    I was curious about this claim so followed the reference on wikipedia: > At current rates the Netherlands is set to become the first country to reach an average work week under 21 hours Turns out the "reference" is just a broken link to an old random blog post with no data that doesn't even make this claim. I would be careful about believing anything on that page.

TuringTest 8y ago

I've always felt that "In Praise of Idleness" would be the basis of the fictional post-scarcity economy of Star Trek (and it's likely that this essay influenced the screenwriters). IMHO the first step to build an economic system where people work in a project because they want to, and not because they need to, is to defuse the protestant ethics that measure the worth of people based on how much they earn. Russell's ideas could underline a new ethics that optimized the economy around what people likes to do the most, in special if the most unpleasant jobs can be automated away by robots.

msla 8y ago
> I've always felt that "In Praise of Idleness" would be the basis of the fictional post-scarcity economy of Star Trek (and it's likely that this essay influenced the screenwriters). The "problem" is that Star Trek has always been about the adventure at the frontier, with a quasi-military (and precisely how quasi varying based on series) organization exploring new worlds, meeting new civilizations, and fighting with well-known civilizations the Federation is currently struggling against. Very little time is devoted to the people at home actually living that post-scarcity existence. (And, no, I don't see that as a problem. I like adventure-oriented Star Trek. It just means that these ideas have little relevance to that show.)
toasterlovin 8y ago
> The protestant ethics that measure the worth of people based on how much they earn. Curious how you got this idea lodged in your head. There are so many examples that refute it that it's hard to know where to start. There are other prominent cultures which are much more concerned with displays of wealth than protestants (Chinese, for example). And then there are sub-cultures within the U.S. that are also more concerned with displays of wealth (watch some rap videos). And, generally speaking, my life experience is that more devout -> less concerned with material wealth. Then there's the protestant sect (Calvinists) who split from the Catholics because they believed in predestination, which would rule out how much you earn as a path to moral worth (in addition to good works).
- TuringTest 8y ago
  I think I haven't explained myself well. I was not referring to exhibition of wealth, but to the effort required to earn a living. Mesuring personal worth in terms of wealth would be a by-product of this, as a signal that you are being righteous and disciplined. I.e. I was talking about the Lutheran work ethic, which considers hard work and frugality virtuous, and leisure and munificence as moral failures. Other cultures think of free time, and expending on oneself and loved ones, as esencial to enjoy life.

wallflower 8y ago

If you are interested in this concept, take a look at Marshall Brain’s “Manna”. https://marshallbrain.com/manna.htm https://marshallbrain.com/manna.htm

carapace 8y ago

"Let the robots do the work and we'll take their pay." - - - - Cf. "What Are People For?" by Wendell Berry

sunshinelackof 8y ago

I'd go even further to suggest that idleness itself has value and doesn't need be justified by the belief that a mind with fewer external stressors is more productive. It's only worth clarification because the idea of "wanting, but not needing" to work is incredibly foreign and through our current lens can only be interpreted as "needing to work, but enjoying it more."

alexhutcheson 8y ago

Unfortunately in practice it seems that people have actually responded to increased leisure time by dramatically increasing the amount of time they spend watching TV. That's certainly not true for everyone, but I think most people need some external impetus or accountability to make progress and stay on track towards their goals.

wes-k 8y ago
Really? Where are you getting this from? I suspect that may be true for ephemeral leisure time or the little leisure time most people have. Give the average person a 20/hr work week and I’d assume they won’t fill the time with more tv.
perfunctory 8y ago
The pleasures of urban populations have become mainly passive: seeing cinemas, watching football matches, listening to the radio, and so on. This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work; if they had more leisure, they would again enjoy pleasures in which they took an active part. -- Bertrand Russell http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html
alexashka 8y ago
Maybe watching tv is their goal, for the time being. If they were given an opportunity to travel the world, most would gladly take it. Having free time isn't of much use if it isn't coupled with resources to do interesting things. Since most people have very limited resources - tv is the best bang for your buck way of spending the time.

toasterlovin 8y ago

This is a lovely idea, but completely incompatible with biology (like other utopian ideals). The evolutionarily stable outcome is for everybody to use all of their available time to compete with each other for access to resources. It doesn't matter if we could all subsist (even at what is, by all measures, a historically opulent level) on 4 hours/day of work. To start, some people will work more to get more. Eventually all people will work more just to get enough. And that's just the logic of existing in an environment of abundance. The larger issue is that abundance doesn't last. Resources quickly become scarce because populations grow to the environment's carrying capacity.

perfunctory 8y ago
Working week of 40 hours once also seemed utopian and yet here we have it. And it didn't lead to economic ruin. I don't see why we can't reduce it even further. "Most countries in the developed world have seen average hours worked decrease significantly.[14][15] For example, in the U.S in the late 19th century it was estimated that the average work week was over 60 hours per week.[16] Today the average hours worked in the U.S. is around 33,[17] with the average man employed full-time for 8.4 hours per work day, and the average woman employed full-time for 7.9 hours per work day.[18] The front runners for lowest average weekly work hours are the Netherlands with 27 hours,[19] and France with 30 hours.[20] At current rates the Netherlands is set to become the first country to reach an average work week under 21 hours" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  We’ve also had three entire continents to take population pressure off of Europe for the last several hundred years. We’ll see what happens now that the Americas and Australia are pretty well settled.
- akvadrako 8y ago
  I was curious about this claim so followed the reference on wikipedia: > At current rates the Netherlands is set to become the first country to reach an average work week under 21 hours Turns out the "reference" is just a broken link to an old random blog post with no data that doesn't even make this claim. I would be careful about believing anything on that page.