4 ms·
Yeah but that's not even contended. In a hypothetical scenario where you didn't have to work to earn a certain quality of life (since, lets be honest, none of u
by slothtrop 4y ago
Yeah but that's not even contended. In a hypothetical scenario where you didn't have to work to earn a certain quality of life (since, lets be honest, none of us have to "work to live"), would it be ideal to spend all of that time on passive, consumptive activities? Notwithstanding issues with life balance that are not endemic, I think work is good for people in most of its capacity. Coordinating with others and producing something of your labors, particularly that which others value, is validating and meaningful. You could quibble that some of that could be done at leisure, but things we take for granted won't. There's a lot of well compensated hard work out there that no one does for fun.
Leaving aside the question of the merit of work, I think a consistently low-productivity lifestyle leads to negative symptoms.
- watwut 4y agoIn that hypothetical scenario, it is likely that I would not ended up spending all of that time on passive, consumptive activities. Assuming that there would be options for me to be more active and it would be socially acceptable for me to do things. (If I lived in suburbs where HOA makes it impossible to have garden, I might end up purely passive and depressed simply due to no activity being possible.)