5 ms·

The problem is the absence of leisure during leisure time rather than loss of leisure time. True, there is more time today for hobbies and other such activities

The problem is the absence of leisure during leisure time rather than loss of leisure time. True, there is more time today for hobbies and other such activities than there was previously, and less responsibilities. But the increase in the pace of life sort of compensates for this. I technically waste a lot of time on the internet that could be better served listening to classical music or reading a novel. Yet, I find it very difficult to get in the mood. I know that it is a very enjoyable and enriching experience, and once I start reading/listening, I enjoy it. Yet it is a struggle to get off the internet. I am slowly working towards consuming media (movies, music, books) in a much slower and repetitive fashion. Strictly restrict what you watch/read. Read books you like more than once for better absorption.

koheripbal 4y ago
This has more with a lack of discipline, than a lack of available time or resources.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  It's a common, almost universal, complaint which indicates pretty clearly there is more at play than individual virtue.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    It is a common, almost universal complaint that God sometimes plays favorites. Ergo, we can deduce from this that God exists and does indeed have favorites...
- azemetre 4y ago
  How can you argue it’s a lack of discipline when companies like Meta and Google literally hire psychologists to make their products more addicting? Why should society pay the price for their malfeasance?
  - olalonde 4y ago
    Because our free society is based on the fundamental assumption that grown-up adults are generally responsible and act in their own best interest. Throwing out those assumptions is very dangerous and brings us closer to authoritarianism and tyranny.
    - azemetre 4y ago
      Do you apply these same arguments to other moral hazards like pollution? Wanting to regulate social media (when there are no meaningful regulations) is hardly tyranny.
      - olalonde 4y ago
        > Do you apply these same arguments to other moral hazards like pollution? No, it's not in the same category. Pollution is a cost that is imposed on an uninvolved third party. I do however apply the same argument to things like gambling, fast food, video games, traditional media, etc.
        azemetre 4y ago
        Why can't it be the same category? How many studies need to smack you in the face about social media causing increased levels of depression and anxiety in both teens and adults? Why should social media companies get zero scrutiny for a way of living that they hoisted into the world with zero thought for the repercussions? Why do individuals have to fix a multination corporation's fuck up rather than regulating these companies. I mean we have Meta itself denying researchers data to study this phenomena independently. How is that fair? I as an individual am apparently not even allowed to study how this harms me or my loved ones. IDK, seems like the whole thing has gone awry to me. These companies deserve the hate they get and they've done a disastrous job navigating the political landscape.
        olalonde 4y ago
        No one is forced to use Facebook. If you believe Facebook is causing harm to people you know, talk to them about it and try to persuade them that they are being harmed. Personally, I've never felt Facebook was doing me more harm than good, or I would have stopped using it. I have a theory that underlying most calls for regulations is actually disbelief or disapproval in the choices other individuals freely make. The "victims" rarely seem to be the ones calling for the regulations.
- rakejake 4y ago
  Sure, you could put it that way. There are always two sides to this: one side says onus is on the individual to regulate what they do/consume, other side blames the addictive properties of the substance. The internet is no way comparable to a physical addiction like tobacco, in fact I'm not sure if it could even be called an addiction. I'd put it this way: our way of life today has been altered because of the internet. By default, you have a lot of exposure to media today which means our baseline tolerance for media is very high. Toning this down is very achievable but is not trivial and requires some effort and habit-forming.
r3trohack3r 4y ago
The increase in the pace of modern life does not compensate for this. Many of the problems of the past have been widely solved, and those solutions have brought new problems. Discounting todays solutions based on todays problems misses the historical context this article is addressing. “Modern society doesn’t have leisure time because people can’t help but check Twitter instead of listen to Beethoven, when they have ready access to both” becomes less of a valid critique every 50 years you rewind human history. Today’s problems are a substantial quality of life improvement over history’s problems for a sweeping majority of humans alive today.
- rakejake 4y ago
  I am not claiming that a majority of people in the past enjoyed leisure time. The improvements in tech that lead to more leisure time does not automatically mean people enjoy that time. While there is pressure to get a task done at work, or do chores at home, there is no one pushing you to enjoy yourself. People who don't know how to use this free time, or don't care to use this free time, can instead do more work now. If enough people fill up leisure time with work or work-like activities (doing the dishes), that increases the overall pace of life. You do live in a society after all. Other people's actions will affect you.
neuralRiot 4y ago
Does that makes us happier? I believe that’s what matters in the end and having more spare time not always equate to more happiness, surprisingly, if you look at statistics the more developed countries report lower happiness scores. Happiness is a trip, not a destination.
- ako 4y ago
  Huh? Top 20 happiest countries are developed countries according to this list: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1225047/ranking-of-happiest-countries-worldwide-by-score/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1225047/ranking-of-happi... On a personal note, yes more spare time makes me more happy, more time spend doing nice things with family, more time to sport. Nothing makes more more happy than a day on the sea windsurfing, kitesurfing or windfoiling.

koheripbal 4y ago

This has more with a lack of discipline, than a lack of available time or resources.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
It's a common, almost universal, complaint which indicates pretty clearly there is more at play than individual virtue.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  It is a common, almost universal complaint that God sometimes plays favorites. Ergo, we can deduce from this that God exists and does indeed have favorites...
azemetre 4y ago
How can you argue it’s a lack of discipline when companies like Meta and Google literally hire psychologists to make their products more addicting? Why should society pay the price for their malfeasance?
- olalonde 4y ago
  Because our free society is based on the fundamental assumption that grown-up adults are generally responsible and act in their own best interest. Throwing out those assumptions is very dangerous and brings us closer to authoritarianism and tyranny.
  - azemetre 4y ago
    Do you apply these same arguments to other moral hazards like pollution? Wanting to regulate social media (when there are no meaningful regulations) is hardly tyranny.
    - olalonde 4y ago
      > Do you apply these same arguments to other moral hazards like pollution? No, it's not in the same category. Pollution is a cost that is imposed on an uninvolved third party. I do however apply the same argument to things like gambling, fast food, video games, traditional media, etc.
      - azemetre 4y ago
        Why can't it be the same category? How many studies need to smack you in the face about social media causing increased levels of depression and anxiety in both teens and adults? Why should social media companies get zero scrutiny for a way of living that they hoisted into the world with zero thought for the repercussions? Why do individuals have to fix a multination corporation's fuck up rather than regulating these companies. I mean we have Meta itself denying researchers data to study this phenomena independently. How is that fair? I as an individual am apparently not even allowed to study how this harms me or my loved ones. IDK, seems like the whole thing has gone awry to me. These companies deserve the hate they get and they've done a disastrous job navigating the political landscape.
        olalonde 4y ago
        No one is forced to use Facebook. If you believe Facebook is causing harm to people you know, talk to them about it and try to persuade them that they are being harmed. Personally, I've never felt Facebook was doing me more harm than good, or I would have stopped using it. I have a theory that underlying most calls for regulations is actually disbelief or disapproval in the choices other individuals freely make. The "victims" rarely seem to be the ones calling for the regulations.
rakejake 4y ago
Sure, you could put it that way. There are always two sides to this: one side says onus is on the individual to regulate what they do/consume, other side blames the addictive properties of the substance. The internet is no way comparable to a physical addiction like tobacco, in fact I'm not sure if it could even be called an addiction. I'd put it this way: our way of life today has been altered because of the internet. By default, you have a lot of exposure to media today which means our baseline tolerance for media is very high. Toning this down is very achievable but is not trivial and requires some effort and habit-forming.

r3trohack3r 4y ago

The increase in the pace of modern life does not compensate for this. Many of the problems of the past have been widely solved, and those solutions have brought new problems. Discounting todays solutions based on todays problems misses the historical context this article is addressing. “Modern society doesn’t have leisure time because people can’t help but check Twitter instead of listen to Beethoven, when they have ready access to both” becomes less of a valid critique every 50 years you rewind human history. Today’s problems are a substantial quality of life improvement over history’s problems for a sweeping majority of humans alive today.

rakejake 4y ago
I am not claiming that a majority of people in the past enjoyed leisure time. The improvements in tech that lead to more leisure time does not automatically mean people enjoy that time. While there is pressure to get a task done at work, or do chores at home, there is no one pushing you to enjoy yourself. People who don't know how to use this free time, or don't care to use this free time, can instead do more work now. If enough people fill up leisure time with work or work-like activities (doing the dishes), that increases the overall pace of life. You do live in a society after all. Other people's actions will affect you.

neuralRiot 4y ago

Does that makes us happier? I believe that’s what matters in the end and having more spare time not always equate to more happiness, surprisingly, if you look at statistics the more developed countries report lower happiness scores. Happiness is a trip, not a destination.

ako 4y ago
Huh? Top 20 happiest countries are developed countries according to this list: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1225047/ranking-of-happiest-countries-worldwide-by-score/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1225047/ranking-of-happi... On a personal note, yes more spare time makes me more happy, more time spend doing nice things with family, more time to sport. Nothing makes more more happy than a day on the sea windsurfing, kitesurfing or windfoiling.