A future age of leisure?

[Dann]

....We have programs to make sure the "necessities" are handled: that the homeless have cell phones, people in poverty have computers, etc. Few things frost me like news reports on people who are supposedly living in poverty and they're on the report smoking cigarettes, with the kid on an XBox in the background....

Your homeless have cellphones, computers, and an Xbox? The majority of workers here wil be able to afford them only after a long period of scrimping and saving. What more the unemployed?

And even I don't have an Xbox.

On topic: I think we have it much better than our ancestors and not the other way around. A hunter gatherer failing to find food that day goes hungry. Continue failing a couple days and he could die of starvation already. We modern day humans are indeed bound to our work (some would call it slavery of a different sort), but what kind of 'work' is it? We sit in air-conditioned comfort, exercise at most our brains and fingertips while drinking coffee, have our lunches delivered to us, and when no one is looking are actually doing other stuff (like posting at CFC). In short, leisure! And we have the gall to complain and campaign for even more 'leisure time'?

 

[Aramazd]

Can we ever match our ancestors and hunter gatherers in terms of leisure time (4-12 hour work weeks, though I imagine even the concept of a "work week" would elicit a hearty laugh from a tribal person)? Can civilization as we know it even containue to function without keeping the people constantly laboring?

If hunter-gatherers had such short work weeks (which I doubt could be that short because then that would mean that they worked less than 2 hours a day at max) why are most people living in settled societies? I believe that we have more leisure time than ever before

 

[Elta]

If hunter-gatherers had such short work weeks (which I doubt could be that short because then that would mean that they worked less than 2 hours a day at max) why are most people living in settled societies? I believe that we have more leisure time than ever before

Ussually the 2 hours refer to the Hunter Gatherers that are the most well off, I.E. Amazonian 2 hours of monkey hunting. each man in the tribe has his own monkey hunting area and they live in large shelters with 100+ people.

Most Hunter gatherers are far from as well of as amazonians.

 

[warpus]

No, because it is for most part not your productive time. Lot of leisure time is geared around getting you to ready for another lap in eternal wheel that is non-bottomed economy.

I am actually an evening person - not a morning person - I am far more productive when I'm at home than I'm at work. And either way my point stands - I have TONS of leisure time - compared to somebody of a comparable social status from 50, 100, 500, 1,000, 2,000, ... years ago.

Then again, if you only have the basic necessities, there isn't much point to having free time. The enjoyment during free time comes from things other than the basic necessities - be it Internet, books, TV, movies, etc.

Some of the most enjoyable things in life are free, as I was recently reminded again

Let's look at this extreme example though - say that you were able to find a 15 hour a week job to take care of your basic needs (6 hours was a bit of an underestimate on your part, methinks). This would leave you with 5 full days out of 7, a week, of leisure time. You could do whatever you wish. You could sit at home and create art, compose poems, write music - be creative. As long as the leisure activity of your choice didn't require much money (ie. sex, art, swimming, soccer, etc.), you'd be free to pursue your leisurly interests for 5 days out of 7, not to mention the evenings/afternoons on the 2 days that you did have to work.

This is entirely possible... it was never before, for someone of an average social standing. This to me says that leisure time is increasing, on average.

Now, if you want your leisure activities to include things that cost money, of course you're going to have to work more hours a week. People have mentioned a mortgage.. A house is a luxury.. you do not need one to live - you could easily get by renting a cheap apartment.

A lot of people who say that we have less leisure time are forgetting that we take a lot of luxuries for granted - and often times assume them to be basic needs.. which they're not. Internet, cable, a cell phone, a house, a car, tv, dvd player, dvd collection, etc, etc.. These are all luxuries that a lot of people take for granted and forget to factor into the equation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Narz: I was thinking about your desire to own your own land. Land is actually incredibly cheap; you can buy a decent-sized farm for very little, depending on where you want to go.

However, to purchase it, you will have to move far from a city. So, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want access to modern infrastructure, then the land is expensive; but that's entirely fair due to the benefits of said infrastructure.

 

[punkbass2000]

I tend to think that, on the whole, people's overall happiness is largely unchanged (if that even makes sense). Any "objective" measures of leisure-time or cost-of-living vs. income are largely irrelevant, IMO.

 

[EdwardTking]

Technology was supposed to make everything easier and yet now people are working as hard as ever and often just as unfulfilled. Do you think technology will ever bring us increased quality of life thru reducing the amount of drudgery man has to go thru simply in order to survive or is it just a pipe dream, a carrot on a stick? What do you think?

By the way, comparisons to massive improvements since the industrial revolution don't ring true to me (as arguments for improvement) since factory workers are still overworked and underpaid, just these days they're generally outside of the US and Western Europe. Can we ever match our ancestors and hunter gatherers in terms of leisure time (4-12 hour work weeks, though I imagine even the concept of a "work week" would elicit a hearty laugh from a tribal person)? Can civilization as we know it even containue to function without keeping the people constantly laboring?

If it were up to you, how would you increase society's efficiency?

Engineers, innovators, quality controllers, scientists, small businessmen and technical consultants have greatly increased the efficiency of society.

Unfortunately big business, bureaucrats, lawyers, marketeers, many managers, politicians, PR and tax accountants have decreased the efficiency.

I reckon that in the UK most people in full time jobs work longer now than a generation ago. I work for government. There is an awful lot of frankly badly organised, contradictory and unneccessary work related activity that takes time, that is ultimately of no overall benefit.

Computers won't solve this, they merely provide an entirely new set of problems to match their solutions and magnify poor management. The ability to churn out documents quickly merely replaces the limitations of mechanical type writers and old analogue reprographics with the problem of having too many documents to read.

My solutions would include:

(i) abolishing political parties
(ii) charging people by volume for their production of documents and emails

 

[nc-1701]

Lets put it this way salt and pepper used to be a luxury item for royalty and the rich now just about everyone has both. Heck fast food places even give it out free! Is that improvement or what!

 

[toxicseagull]

to answear the original question. i would cull anyone who reached pensionable age and stop treating genetic disease's.

this would allow a highly effiecient, less strain, no population problems, effectivly streamlining our society as whole,

pretty calous now i think about it but hey whats emotion's when we talk about social streamlining.

 

[Narz]

Narz: I was thinking about your desire to own your own land. Land is actually incredibly cheap; you can buy a decent-sized farm for very little, depending on where you want to go.

However, to purchase it, you will have to move far from a city. So, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want access to modern infrastructure, then the land is expensive; but that's entirely fair due to the benefits of said infrastructure.

What do you mean by infrastructure exactally? Most infrastructure I could do without. With solar panels and a satellite maybe for wireless internet I would do ok. I could have a well dug and set up a rain water collection system as backup.

I would certainly go into the city once in awhile to pick up items I couldn't get in the countryside (or I'd order them UPS or USPS). Overall though I wouldn't miss city/suburban life too much. Fresh out of college I loved it (living in NY) but these days I can pretty much take it or leave it (mostly leave it).

 

[mdwh]

By the way, comparisons to massive improvements since the industrial revolution don't ring true to me (as arguments for improvement) since factory workers are still overworked and underpaid, just these days they're generally outside of the US and Western Europe.

Well yes, exactly - the places that do not have as advanced technology, and in some cases have not become industrialised, so I think that proves the point.

We have far more leisure time *and* greatly improved standards of living compared with 100 years ago.

Can we ever match our ancestors and hunter gatherers in terms of leisure time (4-12 hour work weeks, though I imagine even the concept of a "work week" would elicit a hearty laugh from a tribal person)?

Do you have a source? I find it surprising that they only needed to spend up to 12 hours a week looking for food - surely people in feudal times spent most of the week farming?

Now, if you were happy with a basic standard of living, 4 hours is pushing it - the main problem is that there isn't any free land these days for you to build a shelter. So it's more to do with cost of land, than technology. If you were happy living rough though, 4 hours at minimum wage would get you £17 in the UK, so you could probably buy some basic food. 12 hours would get you £51.

However, I'd wager a large percentage of those here are supported by their parents financially or are insomniacs or both. Also I didn't say we don't have any free time, just not enough. Also, I'm talking on a world level not just 1st world (where 99% of the posters hail from).

Well maybe I had more free time as a child, but I still have plenty now. When I played Civilization 1 as a child, I was worried I wouldn't have time for games when I was grown-up - now I find out I do, plus I don't have someone telling me when to go to bed

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Technology was supposed to make everything easier and yet now people are working as hard as ever and often just as unfulfilled. Do you think technology will ever bring us increased quality of life thru reducing the amount of drudgery man has to go thru simply in order to survive or is it just a pipe dream, a carrot on a stick? What do you think?

By the way, comparisons to massive improvements since the industrial revolution don't ring true to me (as arguments for improvement) since factory workers are still overworked and underpaid, just these days they're generally outside of the US and Western Europe. Can we ever match our ancestors and hunter gatherers in terms of leisure time (4-12 hour work weeks, though I imagine even the concept of a "work week" would elicit a hearty laugh from a tribal person)? Can civilization as we know it even containue to function without keeping the people constantly laboring?

If it were up to you, how would you increase society's efficiency?

I hear these kinds of arguments all the time, and they're BS.

We have vastly more leisure time today than we did even a few years ago, and certainly much more than our Stone Age ancestors, whose 24 hour preoccupation was simply survival. I don't know where you get this 4-12 hour work week schedule. If you're interested in a life of total leisure, you won't find it unless you are independently wealthy. The rest of us have to work for a living.