3 ms·
Prior to industrialization, there wasn't much affordance in commumities for fully idle people. Give or take toddlers and people troubled by striking physical or
by swatcoder 3y ago
Prior to industrialization, there wasn't much affordance in commumities for fully idle people. Give or take toddlers and people troubled by striking physical or mental disabilities, everybody had social duties (i.e. work) and played some role contributing to their community. Even most aristocrats and nobles that lived on the backs of othes's labor had community obligations of some kind.
Now, though, we aim society towards 5% of people who want to work not having some opportunity to do so, while doing some paperwork magic to exlude an order of magnitude of other non-workers from that measure. Meanwhile, we recognize widespread depression and anxiety that makes sense in a society where most people have no clear, constructive community obligations to give them direction and we struggle to reconcile liberal ideas of universal life, liberty, and happiness with the intuitive collectivist expectation that everybody should be chipping in (even when they have no opportunity to do so).
One can argue it's all been worth it, or that it's surely the road to some future utopia, but "completely wrong" is maybe not the right word choice for the opposing view.