Why is working *less* a vision of utopia?

[RavenSky]

The only case where I see mandatory "work" valid is with children: children are in the age of best brain plasticity, and tend to live in the present without believing much in plans for the future, so it's the parents or society duty to keep their future options open by making them work at their education.

Ironically, even children, when left to explore on their own in terms of education, will "work". They will tend to follow the same pattern as your gamer example. One child may be totally obsessed with dinosaurs, showing no interest in sciences or reading or history. But the obsession with dinosaurs will lead the child to reading and science and history in order learn more about those dinosaurs. This is the Sudbury School model, and it is a successful one.

I do think schooling should be mandatory (& free), but more as a means to provide the resources to allow children to learn than any belief that children have to be made to learn. And that parallels my belief that freeing adults from having to work for pay will allow adults to work for self-actualization.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Americans are weird.

If you went to a barbecue in Australia, and asked someone 'what do you do?', and they said 'Well I won lotto a few years back, so now I just go surfing and drink beer', nobody would be embarrassed. The responses would be along the lines of 'You lucky bastard' (and, of course, 'It's your shout, then').

Defining yourself by your employment is sad. Being embarrassed because you can't join in the sadness is crazy.

I never said it wasn't crazy. No one in America would be embarrassed to live off lotto winnings. What would be embarrassing is running out of money before you die.

Just about every English surname that ends in "er" is an old trade name, Carter, Fletcher, Porter, Butler, etc. Add in every Smith and Wright and it's about half the phone book. We've always been identified by our occupation. It's nothing new.

That would make him a Foster.

My response to "What do you do?" depends on the people I'm talking to. If I know I'm talking to cubicle people, I'd be inclined to give a bit of a work history and if I'm currently unemployed, say so and leave it at that. Isn't there a social protocol here? Plenty of Americans won the lotto so to speak, they just know not to talk about it publically or learned a quick lesson not to.

Americans are weird.

If you went to a barbecue in Australia, and asked someone 'what do you do?', and they said 'Well I won lotto a few years back, so now I just go surfing and drink beer', nobody would be embarrassed. The responses would be along the lines of 'You lucky bastard' (and, of course, 'It's your shout, then').

Defining yourself by your employment is sad. Being embarrassed because you can't join in the sadness is crazy.

I have become increasingly convinced in recent years that I would be much happier living in another first-world country that doesn't have the absurd ideas about work and work culture that the U.S. does.

This just isn't true. Perhaps you're not hanging out at the right places at the right time. Try places of leisure on a Tuesday afternoon. Perhaps you have to be without a job for an extended period of time also and meet the regulars.
I had no problem being without a job and just riding my bike. I had no problem defining myself as such, giving some consideration to whom I was speaking to of course. I mean, I'm not going to say, 'I ride a bike' to a forty year old man bagging groceries.

Chinaski: “I’m gonna ask you the same damn thing people are always asking me.”
Wanda: “Like?”
Chinaski: “Like what do you do?”
Wanda: “I drink.”

 

[dx713]

The only case where I see mandatory "work" valid is with children: children are in the age of best brain plasticity, and tend to live in the present without believing much in plans for the future, so it's the parents or society duty to keep their future options open by making them work at their education.

Ironically, even children, when left to explore on their own in terms of education, will "work". They will tend to follow the same pattern as your gamer example. One child may be totally obsessed with dinosaurs, showing no interest in sciences or reading or history. But the obsession with dinosaurs will lead the child to reading and science and history in order learn more about those dinosaurs. This is the Sudbury School model, and it is a successful one.

I do think schooling should be mandatory (& free), but more as a means to provide the resources to allow children to learn than any belief that children have to be made to learn. And that parallels my belief that freeing adults from having to work for pay will allow adults to work for self-actualization.

True. I didn't push the reflexion far enough.
I'd love to see a society with the ressources and mentality* to widely adopt a Sudbury kind of model. What I had in mind is that schooling in itself must be some kind of mandatory, or you run the risk of a kid only knowing about his parent's interests instead of finding his own. (Plus, until we are in a grade A+ utopia, there's always the risk of a parent shutting down their child to pursue their own self-interest)

*: I say mentality because all resistances to change toward that kind of models aren't only a question of ressource. In my experience (but my kids don't seem to find it very different), today's schooling is as much about learning obedience and how to guess what answer the teacher is waiting for than about kids self-improvement, plus a lot of the society being organized around standardized grades and diplomas...

 

[dystopian]

Take not working to it's logical extreme. No one *has* to do anything, there's no need to do well in school, or even a need to study, and everyone spends their entire life at leisure. Why is this reality a good thing? It would essentially be a long march towards death,

Hate to break it to you; but the 'its a long march towards death' part doesn't change when everyone *doesn't* spend their entire life towards leisure. In fact, if anything, it makes it more of an actual *march*, as opposed to a casual walk.

and 'leisure' would in effect lose all meaning because there would be no alternative. Filling time would, in effect, become our job.

When people claim concepts of this nature lose meaning or value when there's too much of it, they're either confusing it with the value of physical things as determined by economics; or they're just plain confused. 'Leisure' as a 'word' may lose meaning when it's all you have... but leisure itself won't lose any of its value because of it.

Somewhere in the middle people are given meaningful tasks that fill their time, that give them a consistent outlet for their energies, that motivate them to improve as a person, to grow, and so on.

Why can't they decide those meaningful tasks *themselves*? Why must they be given to them?

Even people with lots of funds usually do some kind of useful work because doing things is a part of who we are.

I think you're being overly generous with the term "useful work" in that particular context.

 

[rousseau]

Hate to break it to you; but the 'its a long march towards death' part doesn't change when everyone *doesn't* spend their entire life towards leisure. In fact, if anything, it makes it more of an actual *march*, as opposed to a casual walk.

and 'leisure' would in effect lose all meaning because there would be no alternative. Filling time would, in effect, become our job.

When people claim concepts of this nature lose meaning or value when there's too much of it, they're either confusing it with the value of physical things as determined by economics; or they're just plain confused. 'Leisure' as a 'word' may lose meaning when it's all you have... but leisure itself won't lose any of its value because of it.

Somewhere in the middle people are given meaningful tasks that fill their time, that give them a consistent outlet for their energies, that motivate them to improve as a person, to grow, and so on.

Why can't they decide those meaningful tasks *themselves*? Why must they be given to them?

Even people with lots of funds usually do some kind of useful work because doing things is a part of who we are.

I think you're being overly generous with the term "useful work" in that particular context.

I guess where my thoughts, and others thoughts meet, is that people require 'meaningful' work. The question is what that meaningful work means and how people can attain it.

I don't know, maybe I'm just completely delusional and am trying to rationalize my enjoyment of my work, but overall I think if people were given work that they wanted to do they would be happier than having no work.

 

[RavenSky]

Hate to break it to you; but the 'its a long march towards death' part doesn't change when everyone *doesn't* spend their entire life towards leisure. In fact, if anything, it makes it more of an actual *march*, as opposed to a casual walk.



When people claim concepts of this nature lose meaning or value when there's too much of it, they're either confusing it with the value of physical things as determined by economics; or they're just plain confused. 'Leisure' as a 'word' may lose meaning when it's all you have... but leisure itself won't lose any of its value because of it.

Somewhere in the middle people are given meaningful tasks that fill their time, that give them a consistent outlet for their energies, that motivate them to improve as a person, to grow, and so on.

Why can't they decide those meaningful tasks *themselves*? Why must they be given to them?

Even people with lots of funds usually do some kind of useful work because doing things is a part of who we are.

I think you're being overly generous with the term "useful work" in that particular context.

I guess where my thoughts, and others thoughts meet, is that people require 'meaningful' work. The question is what that meaningful work means and how people can attain it.

I don't know, maybe I'm just completely delusional and am trying to rationalize my enjoyment of my work, but overall I think if people were given work that they wanted to do they would be happier than having no work.

Again, you choose to state it as "if people were given work...". Why do people have to be "given work"? Why can't they choose for themselves what to do with their time?

You enjoy your job. Wonderful! On my first date with my husband, he talked about flying airplanes. It is all he ever wanted to do. I commented that he was one of those incredibly lucky people who was getting paid to do exactly what they would be doing even without the paycheck. It sounds like perhaps you are also one of those very lucky people. Would you stop doing your job if you suddenly had enough money to live at least your current lifestyle without your current paycheck? Why or why not?

 

[ZiprHead]

I think we should consider this a little deeper. I think the OP is more than a little wrong-headed but it made me think, "What if...?".

So let's all tell what we would do if we were actually independently wealthy.

I enjoy repairing computers. I would help poor people keep their computers going so they can look for work and better their lives.

You?

 

[barbos]

Yeah, main problem of poor people is their broken computers.
Problem is, there will be no computers to fix.

I have said it before, a lot and probably most of the people can't be let free of work, cause they don't have and probably incapable to have decent hobbies. The truth is, people who are going to be replaced by robots in some sense are robots themselves. They work all day and then watch sports or stupid reality shows on TV. You can't replace work with more sports or reality shows on TV and they don't have interesting enough hobbies.

Some people said that kids do not work and have hobbies and they are fine. First of all they do work (school), and second of all their brain is different it's easier for them to try new and different things every day.
Look at the extreme example of very old people. Try to teach them anything new or use something new?
In most cases they are perfectly capable to learn simple stuff, but they have no will to do so. They want to have their black and white tube TV and that's it.

 

[Toni]

If I were independently wealthy:

I think I would like to own/run a really great independent book store. I would need to be independently wealthy to do this, I think. But even without independent wealth, if I could do this successfully: keep it afloat and keep myself afloat, financially, without killing myself, I think that would be wealth enough.

Depending on the level of wealth but I would keep enough so that I could have a nice place with a bit of land: some woods but also space for nice gardens (food, herbs, flowers). I'd spend a lot of my time tending those.

The house would have a lovely kitchen, a nice cozy sitting room with plenty of bookshelves and windows. Don't interfere with my fantasy here by mentioning that the nice sunny windows would probably leave little space for bookshelves. This is a fantasy.

A studio for painting.

A library for more reading, and also for my computer. Maybe with a fireplace. The sitting room would have a fireplace and comfy chairs and a nice sofa for a nap. So would the library.

Also a place by a nice quiet lake. Not too isolated: I want to be able to get to town for groceries and to some nice restaurants once a week or so but really, I don't need to actually see and especially not hear my neighbors. Oh, and a watercraft for pleasure.

Enough money to travel when I want to travel and to make sure someone is looking after my properties when I am not there. I haven't been to Europe yet and I really would like to go and spend some time, not rushing about but just having a 'home base' from whence to base my excursions until I am ready to return home.

With the rest of my time, I would like to volunteer with literacy programs, specifically reading and also science literacy. I like kids of all ages and would enjoy working with kids.

Also to fund libraries (what a quaint idea!) in as many communities as possible. Help fund clean water projects, child health care projects, literacy programs around the world.

Also help fund land conservancy projects.

Help fund research on metabolic disorders, neurological disorders, cancer research.

Also art museums....fund programs for children and youth art.

Scholarships at all my alma maters.

Actually, it would be enough that there was a really great independent bookstore near by. I wouldn't have to own it or work there.

 

[Unbeatable]

I think we should consider this a little deeper. I think the OP is more than a little wrong-headed but it made me think, "What if...?".

So let's all tell what we would do if we were actually independently wealthy.

If I was independently wealthy, the first thing I would need to do is hire the top mental health professionals I can find to help me overcome my arrested psychosocial development. I'd need to get to the point where I'm no longer afraid to do the sort of experimentation and self-discovery that I never did during my teens and twenties on account of the anxiety and depression. I'd need to try different activities out and discover passions and interests. Once I was able to actually develop interests, then I might be able to engage in some sort of productive, "meaningful" activity. I imagine there are a lot of people who, like me, would need to figure themselves out and become more engaged with the world before they can find something "meaningful" that suits them, but who are held back from doing so by the demoralizing effect of numerous obstacles and risks, not to mention insufficient time and energy. Removing these external factors is a first step which makes it easier to undertake the process of recovering from self-defeating patterns of thought/behavior and moving towards personal growth.

 

[Canard DuJour]

I think we should consider this a little deeper. I think the OP is more than a little wrong-headed but it made me think, "What if...?".

So let's all tell what we would do if we were actually independently wealthy.

I enjoy repairing computers. I would help poor people keep their computers going so they can look for work and better their lives.

You?

There wouldn't be enough hours in the day.

For starters, I'd get way more exercise than when I have to work. Then I have all sorts of unfinished art, practical skills I'd like to perfect and more than a lifetime's readng list.

 

[arkirk]

To put it simply, I think we are building up huge ecological debts as a race of beings, which will have to be given value and our economic path will have to devote ever increasing effort and work to restoring a suitable environment for our species. That will mean a lot of work most of which still has to be defined, but definitely which will have to eventually be done. There is no free lunch.

 

[credoconsolans]

Advances in culture and art didn't occur until people had leisure time from scrabbling a living out of nature, whether hunter/gathering or agriculture.

Most people hate the work they do. Most would gladly give it up to 'work' on things that interest them.

 

[Toni]

Advances in culture and art didn't occur until people had leisure time from scrabbling a living out of nature, whether hunter/gathering or agriculture.

Most people hate the work they do. Most would gladly give it up to 'work' on things that interest them.

One of the things that I find fascinating, intriguing and inspiring is the fact that people created art when indeed, they were working hard scraping out a living as hunters/gatherers. The impulse to create, to describe and to explain seems to have existed as long as there have been people.

 

[rousseau]

Have been thinking about this thread over the months and I'm still not convinced the idea is faulty. Maybe it would be best if what *we do* isn't arbitrarily dictated by the market, but I do think *doing* and *accomplishing* are important aspects of human psychology. I'm still having trouble imagining not working from here on out in my life.

 

[dystopian]

Have been thinking about this thread over the months and I'm still not convinced the idea is faulty. Maybe it would be best if what *we do* isn't arbitrarily dictated by the market, but I do think *doing* and *accomplishing* are important aspects of human psychology. I'm still having trouble imagining not working from here on out in my life.

One should not make the mistake of thinking one's one troubles imagining certain things translates to some sort of insight that applies to others. But the main point that has bubbled up from the thread still stands: just because you're no longer forced to work, doesn't mean you're forced to not work.

 

[Jayjay]

I tend think of "work" as something that is not only useful, but what I would rather not do unless I was forced or paid. In that light, being in a position where I would not have to do anything at all would be kind of an optimal condition... but that's not the only possible criteria. We could imagine, say, that being as productive as one can be is another optimum. Or that state where one produces exactly as much as one consumes.

 

[lpetrich]

These are pipe dreams unless we come up with an energy source beyond oil to run the show with.

Check out Cleantech News — Solar, Wind, EV News (#1 Source) | CleanTechnica -- it's an enthusiast site, so expect it to be overoptimistic. But look at what it talks about -- the increasing economic viability of wind and solar electric generation.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I'm not sure people want to work less. I think people want to work at something that fulfills more than the time card.

 

[Togo]

I think that the issue is not so much working versus not working, but rather what you choose to do. Most things people do in the world are entirely unpaid. That doesn't mean they're not valuable, or not appreciated.

Money bridges the gap between doing what someone needs you to do, and what you would rather being doing with your time. Computer game development is quite poorly paid, because lots of people want to spend their time doing it. By contrast sewage engineering, or working at the morgue, is very well paid. Utopia is where everyone can spend their time and efforts as they would wish. Not somewhere where no one ever bothers to do anything.