5 ms·

The pleasures of urban populations have become mainly passive: seeing cinemas, watching football matches, listening to the radio, and so on. This results from t

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, 1932 http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

keiferski 6y ago
People have a lot of leisure time today, so much so that Americans, on average, watch about 4 hours of television/video per day. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption I really don’t think working a 40-hour a week job is the hold up here.
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  > People have a lot of leisure time today, so much so that Americans, on average, watch about 4 hours of television/video per day. You have a fundamentally different view of leisure time than what Bertrand Russel is talking about. In his view, leisure is something in which one has to be actively engaged in. Modern television, however, outsources much of this: laugh tracks are a prime example, but another example would be the BBC's Sherlock series which doesn't make it possible for the viewer to figure out "who done it", it only has Sherlock swoop in and connect dots that were never shown.
  - keiferski 6y ago
    I think we are talking past each other. I interpreted the quote to mean, “if people had more time, they would be more involved in leisure activities, not simply consuming.” As I said, I don’t think the issue is one of time. It’s more that there is a massive industrial complex pushing you to consume, click, engage, etc., while cultural movements that encourage creating things and active engagement are niche at best.
    - IkmoIkmo 6y ago
      I think you misinterpreted the quote. You counter by saying people have 4 hours of time to spend watching TV. But the quote never mentioned insufficient time, only insufficient energy. > This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work; This lack of energy makes people passively consume, e.g. listen to the radio (as the quote mentions), or watch TV (as you mention). Rather it's the notion that people's energy's are so drained from (often seemingly meaningless) work, that they have no desire to do anything but just consume idly. I don't know if that's true or not, but I personally do feel it is. When I'm doing 40-60 hour workweeks, I've got no desire to do anything that isn't largely passive. Whereas when I worked 20 hours at most, I was always busy teaching myself something or building something.
      - wutbrodo 6y ago
        > Rather it's the notion that people's energy's are so drained from (often seemingly meaningless) work, that they have no desire to do anything but just consume idly. I don't know if that's true or not, but I personally do feel it is. When I'm doing 40-60 hour workweeks, I've got no desire to do anything that isn't largely passive. Whereas when I worked 20 hours at most, I was always busy teaching myself something or building something. I've always felt like forty hours is less than ideal, but I don't see the connection with meaninglessness. During the period in my life when I had an unchallenging job[1], I found myself ravenous for active mental work after-hours: I'd learn new things in my field, read econ papers constantly[2], and it was probably the most productive adult period of my music-learning life. Now that I have an intense, very intellectually challenging job, I understand for the first time in my life why people might want to watch TV, especially at the regularity that most do it. [1] I wouldn't describe it as meaningless, but it wasn't intellectually challenging at all [2] I have a minor in econ, so enough to understand many papers at a relatively superficial level
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - gknoy 6y ago
    > BBC's Sherlock series which doesn't make it possible for the viewer to figure out "who done it", it only has Sherlock swoop in and connect dots that were never shown I realize this is a little off-topic, but this is something that the original Holmes did as well. Almost every story was solved because Holmes had already spent time "off-camera" doing things, or already happened to know about obscure poisons, etc. It all feels very deus-ex-machina. It wasn't until the Agatha Christie era when it became customary for mysteries to show all of the clues that the Detective encounters to be also given to the Reader, so that the reader can try to figure it out before the detective exposes things.
- gen_greyface 6y ago
  >>This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work from the previous comment
- hedberg10 6y ago
  I suspect it's what media consumption does to people, along the lines of David Foster Wallace, who famously threw his TV out. It makes it easy to experience perfection without doing anything. You can feel the perfect romance of beautiful people, and take a perfect vacation - without actively doing anything yourself. But that raises your expectations for everything. So you don't do anything yourself anymore, you just consume. That, combined with a meaningless work, or rather a busyness fetish (dont want to be seen as lazy even though you're not productive), creates the mordern life. No, thank you. I take imperfection and less neuroticism (and less work hours) any day over this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
renewiltord 6y ago
We had a rapid check of this hypothesis with unemployment high in the US. People were sitting at home with nothing to do. Perhaps the massive jump in active leisure will suddenly manifest but so far no such thing has come to be.
- _frog 6y ago
  I don't think people being unemployed and staying at home due to a global pandemic is remotely comparable to a situation where people were financially stable but worked less.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Go on then, tell us what factors break down. We can use other similar events to correct for them.
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      The fact that people don't feel free to enjoy leisure activities when their future is uncertain.
    - Frost1x 6y ago
      Imagine a person with health conditions that fit the high risk population of COVID mortality. Now, imagine those people with other health conditions (let's say obesity or heart disease) having a small accident that isn't life threatening but does require a trip to the hospital where they have a higher likelihood of contracting COVID. If I'm one of those at risk people, my "active" activities are going to lean to the safer options I can find like walking or jogging. No mountain climbing, kayaking, skiing, and so forth. I explained this to my parents who have a few existing health conditions that have a high correlation with COVID mortality rates based on the data I've seen. They don't need to go into the hospital for a cut or injured finger if they can avoid the accident in the first place. Obviously if a real emergency arrives you need to weigh the risks of contracting COVID vs the emergency (an admittedly nearly impossible task) but you should try to minimize risks for the time being where you can to try and avoid that situation completely. Basically you need to be a little more risk averse than you may normally be under the assumption a minor injury is manageable if you're potentially susceptible to COVID right now.
nubbins 6y ago
Quarantining outside a big city has opened my eyes to how much urban life is purely consumptive activity. Living in a low density area, just having space and a vehicle to transport supplies I was able to grow vegetables, restore an old motorcycle, build a computer from components, cook and cure meat etc. In my small city apartment all of this activity would've either been impossible or required spending lots of money- turning what was either a fun hobby or a value generating activity into just consumption.
- AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
  My father recently described this phenomenon to me as, "buying one's lifestyle." I'd never heard the phrase before but I think it perfectly describes what so many of us do in urban areas once we've established a foothold financially. I have actually done all the things you list living in Brooklyn, NY over the past seven years. But it hasn't come easy. I grew the vegetables at a community garden, which took years for me to get into. I had to work on the motorcycle in the alley way of my building, which due to recent crime increases in the area is now untenable. I cook and cure my own meats on occasion but due to the high costs associated with getting good meat, the tiny kitchen I have to work with, and the vegan next-door neighbors who roll their eyes at me any time they smell a steak cooking, I obviously don't do it as much as I'd like. The value of the city for me, as someone who both grew up here and then returned after school to pursue work, has been all of the metropolitan values: living so near so many interesting, distinct, and different kinds of people. I work in tech and media but I really tend to enjoy the company of those who work in other fields - I enjoyed the diversity of interests, talents, and values here in NYC. But every place has a point where things become too oppressive and expensive to yield any further cultural benefits - and we clearly hit that mark here even before quarantine. Now, with quarantine in effect, the one thing I really cherished and held onto over the years - being near people - has become a major detractor living in NYC. Without a magnificent amount of reversals, I will be looking to buy property in a state where I am not paying an entire paycheck in taxes to my city government.
- cgh 6y ago
  We moved to a small town some years ago and I agree with you. A lot of our "leisure" time is taken up with our somewhat massive garden and food processing in general, which we enjoy. We are also building a new greenhouse, fixing fences, etc. and we've converted our garage to a combination gym/woodworking shop, which makes for the occasionally dusty workout. If I worked at my job less, I'd have more time for these productive activities and I certainly wouldn't pine away searching for "meaning" in my day job, that's for sure.
john4534243 6y ago
I wanted to post the link exactly to the same essay "In praise of Idleness". Glad to see this essay resonates with other people.

keiferski 6y ago

People have a lot of leisure time today, so much so that Americans, on average, watch about 4 hours of television/video per day. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption I really don’t think working a 40-hour a week job is the hold up here.

ianleeclark 6y ago
> People have a lot of leisure time today, so much so that Americans, on average, watch about 4 hours of television/video per day. You have a fundamentally different view of leisure time than what Bertrand Russel is talking about. In his view, leisure is something in which one has to be actively engaged in. Modern television, however, outsources much of this: laugh tracks are a prime example, but another example would be the BBC's Sherlock series which doesn't make it possible for the viewer to figure out "who done it", it only has Sherlock swoop in and connect dots that were never shown.
- keiferski 6y ago
  I think we are talking past each other. I interpreted the quote to mean, “if people had more time, they would be more involved in leisure activities, not simply consuming.” As I said, I don’t think the issue is one of time. It’s more that there is a massive industrial complex pushing you to consume, click, engage, etc., while cultural movements that encourage creating things and active engagement are niche at best.
  - IkmoIkmo 6y ago
    I think you misinterpreted the quote. You counter by saying people have 4 hours of time to spend watching TV. But the quote never mentioned insufficient time, only insufficient energy. > This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work; This lack of energy makes people passively consume, e.g. listen to the radio (as the quote mentions), or watch TV (as you mention). Rather it's the notion that people's energy's are so drained from (often seemingly meaningless) work, that they have no desire to do anything but just consume idly. I don't know if that's true or not, but I personally do feel it is. When I'm doing 40-60 hour workweeks, I've got no desire to do anything that isn't largely passive. Whereas when I worked 20 hours at most, I was always busy teaching myself something or building something.
    - wutbrodo 6y ago
      > Rather it's the notion that people's energy's are so drained from (often seemingly meaningless) work, that they have no desire to do anything but just consume idly. I don't know if that's true or not, but I personally do feel it is. When I'm doing 40-60 hour workweeks, I've got no desire to do anything that isn't largely passive. Whereas when I worked 20 hours at most, I was always busy teaching myself something or building something. I've always felt like forty hours is less than ideal, but I don't see the connection with meaninglessness. During the period in my life when I had an unchallenging job[1], I found myself ravenous for active mental work after-hours: I'd learn new things in my field, read econ papers constantly[2], and it was probably the most productive adult period of my music-learning life. Now that I have an intense, very intellectually challenging job, I understand for the first time in my life why people might want to watch TV, especially at the regularity that most do it. [1] I wouldn't describe it as meaningless, but it wasn't intellectually challenging at all [2] I have a minor in econ, so enough to understand many papers at a relatively superficial level
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gknoy 6y ago
  > BBC's Sherlock series which doesn't make it possible for the viewer to figure out "who done it", it only has Sherlock swoop in and connect dots that were never shown I realize this is a little off-topic, but this is something that the original Holmes did as well. Almost every story was solved because Holmes had already spent time "off-camera" doing things, or already happened to know about obscure poisons, etc. It all feels very deus-ex-machina. It wasn't until the Agatha Christie era when it became customary for mysteries to show all of the clues that the Detective encounters to be also given to the Reader, so that the reader can try to figure it out before the detective exposes things.
gen_greyface 6y ago
>>This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work from the previous comment
hedberg10 6y ago
I suspect it's what media consumption does to people, along the lines of David Foster Wallace, who famously threw his TV out. It makes it easy to experience perfection without doing anything. You can feel the perfect romance of beautiful people, and take a perfect vacation - without actively doing anything yourself. But that raises your expectations for everything. So you don't do anything yourself anymore, you just consume. That, combined with a meaningless work, or rather a busyness fetish (dont want to be seen as lazy even though you're not productive), creates the mordern life. No, thank you. I take imperfection and less neuroticism (and less work hours) any day over this.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

renewiltord 6y ago

We had a rapid check of this hypothesis with unemployment high in the US. People were sitting at home with nothing to do. Perhaps the massive jump in active leisure will suddenly manifest but so far no such thing has come to be.

_frog 6y ago
I don't think people being unemployed and staying at home due to a global pandemic is remotely comparable to a situation where people were financially stable but worked less.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Go on then, tell us what factors break down. We can use other similar events to correct for them.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    The fact that people don't feel free to enjoy leisure activities when their future is uncertain.
  - Frost1x 6y ago
    Imagine a person with health conditions that fit the high risk population of COVID mortality. Now, imagine those people with other health conditions (let's say obesity or heart disease) having a small accident that isn't life threatening but does require a trip to the hospital where they have a higher likelihood of contracting COVID. If I'm one of those at risk people, my "active" activities are going to lean to the safer options I can find like walking or jogging. No mountain climbing, kayaking, skiing, and so forth. I explained this to my parents who have a few existing health conditions that have a high correlation with COVID mortality rates based on the data I've seen. They don't need to go into the hospital for a cut or injured finger if they can avoid the accident in the first place. Obviously if a real emergency arrives you need to weigh the risks of contracting COVID vs the emergency (an admittedly nearly impossible task) but you should try to minimize risks for the time being where you can to try and avoid that situation completely. Basically you need to be a little more risk averse than you may normally be under the assumption a minor injury is manageable if you're potentially susceptible to COVID right now.

nubbins 6y ago

Quarantining outside a big city has opened my eyes to how much urban life is purely consumptive activity. Living in a low density area, just having space and a vehicle to transport supplies I was able to grow vegetables, restore an old motorcycle, build a computer from components, cook and cure meat etc. In my small city apartment all of this activity would've either been impossible or required spending lots of money- turning what was either a fun hobby or a value generating activity into just consumption.

AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
My father recently described this phenomenon to me as, "buying one's lifestyle." I'd never heard the phrase before but I think it perfectly describes what so many of us do in urban areas once we've established a foothold financially. I have actually done all the things you list living in Brooklyn, NY over the past seven years. But it hasn't come easy. I grew the vegetables at a community garden, which took years for me to get into. I had to work on the motorcycle in the alley way of my building, which due to recent crime increases in the area is now untenable. I cook and cure my own meats on occasion but due to the high costs associated with getting good meat, the tiny kitchen I have to work with, and the vegan next-door neighbors who roll their eyes at me any time they smell a steak cooking, I obviously don't do it as much as I'd like. The value of the city for me, as someone who both grew up here and then returned after school to pursue work, has been all of the metropolitan values: living so near so many interesting, distinct, and different kinds of people. I work in tech and media but I really tend to enjoy the company of those who work in other fields - I enjoyed the diversity of interests, talents, and values here in NYC. But every place has a point where things become too oppressive and expensive to yield any further cultural benefits - and we clearly hit that mark here even before quarantine. Now, with quarantine in effect, the one thing I really cherished and held onto over the years - being near people - has become a major detractor living in NYC. Without a magnificent amount of reversals, I will be looking to buy property in a state where I am not paying an entire paycheck in taxes to my city government.
cgh 6y ago
We moved to a small town some years ago and I agree with you. A lot of our "leisure" time is taken up with our somewhat massive garden and food processing in general, which we enjoy. We are also building a new greenhouse, fixing fences, etc. and we've converted our garage to a combination gym/woodworking shop, which makes for the occasionally dusty workout. If I worked at my job less, I'd have more time for these productive activities and I certainly wouldn't pine away searching for "meaning" in my day job, that's for sure.

john4534243 6y ago

I wanted to post the link exactly to the same essay "In praise of Idleness". Glad to see this essay resonates with other people.