> Boston College research professor Peter Gray specializes in the nature and value of play. Of course Peter finds play in everything because that's his frame o

> Boston College research professor Peter Gray specializes in the nature and value of play. Of course Peter finds play in everything because that's his frame of looking at things. The entire thing is a bit of a joke in how simplistic and fallacious it is. Work is not play because it's unpleasant but the HG work is play because it's fun (not much, it's social, is challenging/not routine/boring and it's optional). It has to deliberately dismiss the need of survival as "well, but they were many so some could avoid working for a month and all would be good " so the reward (food for survival) was not the goal and the goal was play. If there's an abundance of resources that allow you to survive and you don't have a high demand, then you'll have less stress than in other scenario. How is that not Economy 101? There's this fetichism for "the simple life" from people that, I'd conjecture, clearly don't like theirs that much and project it unto others, where they get surprised at "those basic people" having skills, proficiency and actual culture and the capacity to be happy. How can they be happy without competing for a Tesla to make the neighbour jealous, seems to be the silly type of thinking. One of "ignorance is bliss". Extremely poor article in every sense. He should read more or actually engage in anthropology. Surveys don't cut it, I'm afraid. The cherry on top is: "machines should work for us, I don't want to have to produce the drivel for my work, please someone release me from my 'toil' so I can just drink wine with my friends."