9 ms·

> The number of people who I've talked to who legitimately don't know what to do without work during the pandemic is staggering. The pleasures of urban populat

> The number of people who I've talked to who legitimately don't know what to do without work during the pandemic is staggering. 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

marcusverus 6y ago
I'm not sure that this little nugget of wisdom has withstood the test of time. The average number of hours worked has fallen dramatically since the 30s[0] even as interest in passive entertainment has skyrocketed. [0]https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/ https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/
- perfunctory 6y ago
  > as interest in passive entertainment has skyrocketed I would like to see some data on this. It may seem like it but I would say it's quite the opposite.
  - logarhythmic 6y ago
    Why do you think so?
    - perfunctory 6y ago
      I dunno. Here is just one random stat that came to mind. Boston marathon participation throughout the years 1897 - 18 1930 - 218 1970 - 1174 2000 - 17813 2019 - 30234 https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/results/participation https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/results/participat... Still, would be interesting to see some comprehensive study on active leisure.
      - steakknife 6y ago
        Meh. I would bet that has way more to do with the cost of travelling to Boston for the average person around the world and the growth in prestige of that particular event. Also, athleisure is "active" in the literal sense, but is it contributing anything back to society? I guess one could argue it collectively reduces the cost of our growing passiveness. But I would argue, as someone who loves exercising, that exercise is just a video game that makes you feel progressively better the longer you play it instead of worse. It doesn't serve a broader purpose beyond a certain point of basic health, unless you are so good that other people derive satisfaction from your accomplishments (pro athlete) or you are doing it to form social connections (golf, intramural sports leagues, etc.) or like break a world record or something.
- josho 6y ago
  The core of it stands that 'urban populations have become mainly passive'. Perhaps I'd consider revising to replace passive with consumers. So, we've been taught and continually urged to spend our idle hours consuming. So, it isn't a surprise to me that most folks don't know any other way to spend their time.
  - goldenkey 6y ago
    Consumption usually costs money and increases money velocity, which leads to a better economy. So it's a bit different than "idleness."
    - brokenmachine 6y ago
      A better economy... Please define "better".
      - goldenkey 6y ago
        Money is worse when its velocity is low. This is associated with hoarding of cash. The world could have 10000T in cash but if no exchange happens, everyone is poor.
        brokenmachine 6y ago
        Endless consumption is a delusion, regardless of how much "better" the economy appears. Idleness doesn't necessitate consumption, and it's interesting that that conclusion was jumped to.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- isaachawley 6y ago
  Leisure != time outside of work. If you're commuting, if you're too exhausted to get off the couch, if you're on-call and worrying about interruptions, then you're not truly at leisure.
baddox 6y ago
Why do you associate those things specifically with urban life? Cinemas, televised sports, and listening to music are pretty broadly-enjoyed things. I don’t think they’re particularly “passive” either, but they’re certainly not uniquely urban. When I think of unique opportunities in urban environments, I’m thinking more along the lines of nightlife, live sports, music, and theatre, boutique shopping, art galleries, etc. which I don’t consider to be particularly “passive” activities either.
- akiselev 6y ago
  That is a quote from Russell from 1932 written before desegregation, white flight, and the explosion of the suburbs so the differences between urban and rural life was far more stark than it is today. The big networks like NBC and CBS were born just a few years before and it took them until WWII IIRC to really penetrate into all the rural areas of the US (in the 1930 census only 40% of households owned a radio, mostly as a sign of middle class wealth in urban areas). Sports teams could only be supported by relatively high densities of people because television wasn't yet a major source of revenue. Today's equivalent would be smartphones, which are definitely harder to use the further out you are from civilization (I've got no reception 40 minutes from DT San Diego!)
- spanhandler 6y ago
  Yeah, I think Russell got this one wrong and Vonnegut got it right. Consuming-all, creating-none became normal because of mass media. Its availability drove down the social value of playing on an unremarkable, very-local sports team, or playing the piano unremarkably, or singing, or being pretty good at telling a story (but not as good as the radio), and so on. Know what you see references to all the time in previous centuries? Reading aloud as entertainment among family and friends, sometimes even in public places, and even staging little dramas at home. Kids might do the latter still, a bit, but one gets the impression it was much more common then. People didn't stop doing that because they were working more, they stopped because radio was invented. When there was no radio or gramophone, if you could play the piano tolerably well and sing a little you were, to your social circle, hot shit. Not so much afterward. You could play a pick-up game on the green off town square against a neighboring town and people would show up and watch with enthusiasm. When things were expected to be repaired and a blanket might cost quite a damn bit to buy, being able to sew pretty well or being fairly handy at woodworking was far more valuable than it is now. Mass production has driven the social (and economic) value of both way down. Direct personal enjoyment wasn't the only thing one could hope to get from all those "leisure" activities. Oh, your sketches and watercolors? Yeah they're nice I guess. Have you seen Deviantart? Instagram? I follow 200 artists better than you, from around the globe, and most of them aren't even good enough to make any money at it. And so on. Social value approaching zero.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

marcusverus 6y ago

I'm not sure that this little nugget of wisdom has withstood the test of time. The average number of hours worked has fallen dramatically since the 30s[0] even as interest in passive entertainment has skyrocketed. [0]https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/ https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/

perfunctory 6y ago
> as interest in passive entertainment has skyrocketed I would like to see some data on this. It may seem like it but I would say it's quite the opposite.
- logarhythmic 6y ago
  Why do you think so?
  - perfunctory 6y ago
    I dunno. Here is just one random stat that came to mind. Boston marathon participation throughout the years 1897 - 18 1930 - 218 1970 - 1174 2000 - 17813 2019 - 30234 https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/results/participation https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/results/participat... Still, would be interesting to see some comprehensive study on active leisure.
    - steakknife 6y ago
      Meh. I would bet that has way more to do with the cost of travelling to Boston for the average person around the world and the growth in prestige of that particular event. Also, athleisure is "active" in the literal sense, but is it contributing anything back to society? I guess one could argue it collectively reduces the cost of our growing passiveness. But I would argue, as someone who loves exercising, that exercise is just a video game that makes you feel progressively better the longer you play it instead of worse. It doesn't serve a broader purpose beyond a certain point of basic health, unless you are so good that other people derive satisfaction from your accomplishments (pro athlete) or you are doing it to form social connections (golf, intramural sports leagues, etc.) or like break a world record or something.
josho 6y ago
The core of it stands that 'urban populations have become mainly passive'. Perhaps I'd consider revising to replace passive with consumers. So, we've been taught and continually urged to spend our idle hours consuming. So, it isn't a surprise to me that most folks don't know any other way to spend their time.
- goldenkey 6y ago
  Consumption usually costs money and increases money velocity, which leads to a better economy. So it's a bit different than "idleness."
  - brokenmachine 6y ago
    A better economy... Please define "better".
    - goldenkey 6y ago
      Money is worse when its velocity is low. This is associated with hoarding of cash. The world could have 10000T in cash but if no exchange happens, everyone is poor.
      - brokenmachine 6y ago
        Endless consumption is a delusion, regardless of how much "better" the economy appears. Idleness doesn't necessitate consumption, and it's interesting that that conclusion was jumped to.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
isaachawley 6y ago
Leisure != time outside of work. If you're commuting, if you're too exhausted to get off the couch, if you're on-call and worrying about interruptions, then you're not truly at leisure.

baddox 6y ago

Why do you associate those things specifically with urban life? Cinemas, televised sports, and listening to music are pretty broadly-enjoyed things. I don’t think they’re particularly “passive” either, but they’re certainly not uniquely urban. When I think of unique opportunities in urban environments, I’m thinking more along the lines of nightlife, live sports, music, and theatre, boutique shopping, art galleries, etc. which I don’t consider to be particularly “passive” activities either.

akiselev 6y ago
That is a quote from Russell from 1932 written before desegregation, white flight, and the explosion of the suburbs so the differences between urban and rural life was far more stark than it is today. The big networks like NBC and CBS were born just a few years before and it took them until WWII IIRC to really penetrate into all the rural areas of the US (in the 1930 census only 40% of households owned a radio, mostly as a sign of middle class wealth in urban areas). Sports teams could only be supported by relatively high densities of people because television wasn't yet a major source of revenue. Today's equivalent would be smartphones, which are definitely harder to use the further out you are from civilization (I've got no reception 40 minutes from DT San Diego!)
spanhandler 6y ago
Yeah, I think Russell got this one wrong and Vonnegut got it right. Consuming-all, creating-none became normal because of mass media. Its availability drove down the social value of playing on an unremarkable, very-local sports team, or playing the piano unremarkably, or singing, or being pretty good at telling a story (but not as good as the radio), and so on. Know what you see references to all the time in previous centuries? Reading aloud as entertainment among family and friends, sometimes even in public places, and even staging little dramas at home. Kids might do the latter still, a bit, but one gets the impression it was much more common then. People didn't stop doing that because they were working more, they stopped because radio was invented. When there was no radio or gramophone, if you could play the piano tolerably well and sing a little you were, to your social circle, hot shit. Not so much afterward. You could play a pick-up game on the green off town square against a neighboring town and people would show up and watch with enthusiasm. When things were expected to be repaired and a blanket might cost quite a damn bit to buy, being able to sew pretty well or being fairly handy at woodworking was far more valuable than it is now. Mass production has driven the social (and economic) value of both way down. Direct personal enjoyment wasn't the only thing one could hope to get from all those "leisure" activities. Oh, your sketches and watercolors? Yeah they're nice I guess. Have you seen Deviantart? Instagram? I follow 200 artists better than you, from around the globe, and most of them aren't even good enough to make any money at it. And so on. Social value approaching zero.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]