3 ms·

What's the point of living if you can't have a little fun? Living merely for the sake of living is pointless.

by maratd 15y ago

noonespecial 15y ago
Its odd. I was quite curious to float this opinion in this crowd. It is of course, wildly unpopular among the non-geeks in my "regular" life. I wondered if it would also be so here. Affirmative. It always seemed to me that we should "take care of our business" first, and then play later. To see these numbers backwards (IMHO) struck me as a childish "play first" attitude. I wouldn't go so far as to say "cancel sports until we get our health problems sorted out" but a shift in priorities would be refreshing. Football is fun, finally cracking our genome to make disease obsolete (and I think nothing less than 100% of this cures cancer)... now that would be something to cheer about.
- maratd 15y ago
  > It always seemed to me that we should "take care of our business" first, and then play later. This sentiment only works when the "business" is a low hanging fruit. In other words, very doable with reasonable effort with results in the short-term. Anything else, and you hunker down for the long haul. And that means plenty of playing in the interim. For "business" that can take a lifetime or several lifetimes, no, you should definitely make sure you play and play vigorously. Nobody should be asked to sacrifice the quality of their life for the sake of hypothetical benefits for future generations.
- goblin89 15y ago
  > a shift in priorities would be refreshing. Agree, but as tptacek pointed out, there's a lot of commerce happening in football. If majority will shift their concerns to health problems, then the commerce will be happening there. Not sure if it would be necessarily a good thing, and it likely would require strict regulation.
- possibilistic 15y ago
  For what it's worth, I'm a scientist and I agree with you wholeheartedly. Many of my colleagues do as well. (Full-disclosure: I'm still an 'undergrad', but most of my courses are independent research.) I don't cut out fun entirely, but I do tend to overwork. I'll be dead soon and have no recollection of 'fun', so I tend to prioritize/maximize my traversal time spent doing academic 'activities' (which are rewarding in their own right). I still require a basal level of fun to stay sane, though; it would be interesting to quantify it...
mistercow 15y ago
Who said that you can't have a little fun? It's just pretty weird to spend more on football than on cancer research.

What's the point of living if you can't have a little fun? Living merely for the sake of living is pointless.

by maratd 15y ago

What's the point of living if you can't have a little fun? Living merely for the sake of living is pointless.

Its odd. I was quite curious to float this opinion in this crowd. It is of course, wildly unpopular among the non-geeks in my "regular" life. I wondered if it would also be so here. Affirmative. It always seemed to me that we should "take care of our business" first, and then play later. To see these numbers backwards (IMHO) struck me as a childish "play first" attitude. I wouldn't go so far as to say "cancel sports until we get our health problems sorted out" but a shift in priorities would be refreshing. Football is fun, finally cracking our genome to make disease obsolete (and I think nothing less than 100% of this cures cancer)... now that would be something to cheer about.

maratd 15y ago
> It always seemed to me that we should "take care of our business" first, and then play later. This sentiment only works when the "business" is a low hanging fruit. In other words, very doable with reasonable effort with results in the short-term. Anything else, and you hunker down for the long haul. And that means plenty of playing in the interim. For "business" that can take a lifetime or several lifetimes, no, you should definitely make sure you play and play vigorously. Nobody should be asked to sacrifice the quality of their life for the sake of hypothetical benefits for future generations.
goblin89 15y ago
> a shift in priorities would be refreshing. Agree, but as tptacek pointed out, there's a lot of commerce happening in football. If majority will shift their concerns to health problems, then the commerce will be happening there. Not sure if it would be necessarily a good thing, and it likely would require strict regulation.
possibilistic 15y ago
For what it's worth, I'm a scientist and I agree with you wholeheartedly. Many of my colleagues do as well. (Full-disclosure: I'm still an 'undergrad', but most of my courses are independent research.) I don't cut out fun entirely, but I do tend to overwork. I'll be dead soon and have no recollection of 'fun', so I tend to prioritize/maximize my traversal time spent doing academic 'activities' (which are rewarding in their own right). I still require a basal level of fun to stay sane, though; it would be interesting to quantify it...

mistercow 15y ago

Who said that you can't have a little fun? It's just pretty weird to spend more on football than on cancer research.