2006-08-24 19:16:12 · 7 answers · asked by Ger 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
There are occupations, activities, services, productions and provisions of all kinds that we would engage in even if we had unlimited resources. We would do these things according to schedules, fix appointments, and so on, so that they would have the general structure of "work". Whether it FEELS like work is always at least partly a subjective matter. Happy are those who doesn't feel like they are working in their 9 to 5!!!
That said, I share your sentiment. It certainly doesn't seem that we need to be working as hard or as much as we do, or that we need to be subjected to so much stress at work or about work. The conditions are very stressful for workers in Australia right now and they look like they'll get worse; I don't know about where you live.
If everyone were willing to work a moderate amount, we could all enjoy a much happier life, but competition drives us ultimately to exhaustion. I don't know how to solve that problem.
I read once that Indigenous people in the Syndey harbour region before Europeans came worked on average about two hours a day. They had a great climate, modest but varied food supply, and a fantastic view. Of course they didn't have iPods and plasma tvs, but hey, I'll trade ANY DAY!!!!
All the best in your search for the perfect life. Meet you at the end of the road ... :)
2006-08-24 20:14:56 · answer #1 · answered by artful dodger 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Economics is as much of a vice as it is an enabler. Communist theory proposed that man could be comfortable of people just shared their resources. This seems to work well in limited stock in primative tribal societies, but in the advanced cultures, there needs to be a facilitator for research and development, and the resources that are limited regarding import and export - they need a capitalistic incentive to exist.
You can't rely on people sharing, sharing equally. It never works. Humans are just too territorial by nature and always want more than is necessary to survive.
Cash free societies do exist today in some of the Baltic States and rural Russia and China. But they are FAR from work free. They are mostly agricultural societies where the means are bartered for what each produces. That essentially makes the need for work more in demand, not less so.
2006-08-25 02:55:08 · answer #2 · answered by The Garden of Fragile Egos 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Umm...the problem is a thing called economics. As there are LIMITED resources, we have to create a system that distributes everything...work is needed to extract resources and distribution seems to work best in a capitalist society where everyone gets to believe if they just worked hard enough they may be able to buy a jet one day.
2006-08-25 02:24:15 · answer #3 · answered by utopiafourteen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know EXACTLY how you feel.
Life just ain't fair. You could have picked some royal household somewhere to be born in, or any such some as a high-rank "public servant", or a well-to-do family.
If you had, you then would have the option of becoming educated and who knows, maybe leave the world a better place in spite of your entrance-AND-exit and environmental consequences thereof.
Or, instead, to just enjoy the gravy train 'til your teeth fell off.
Now why you neglected the selection stage is for you, not for anybody else.
2006-08-25 02:28:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Resources per se are useless. The utilisation of resources has to be done. How else will u live if resources were not converted to electricity, heat, etc.Somebody has to do that.
2006-08-25 02:42:49 · answer #5 · answered by majorcavalry 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds great!
Can you bring over some $100 bills?
2006-08-25 02:30:40 · answer #6 · answered by joe_on_drums 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because an idle man is a devil's workshop.
2006-08-25 05:50:37 · answer #7 · answered by Pink Rose 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋