In a message dated 99-11-03 10:30:04 EST, email@example.com writes:
> I don't think we can answer this question well until we better understand
I do not get this at all -- it seems that bonds of social trust would have
been more valuable in times of scarcity. I'd appreciate a brief explanation
of this idea.
> the evolutionary *function* of leisure. Leisure was something we evolved
> like, and I don't buy the "conserve energy while waiting for something to
> happen" theory of leisure. Actual leisure is much more active than this.
> So it must have had a more active function in our ancestor's lives.
> My current theory is that leisure is mainly about "bonding." By spending
> time with our social allies, we show that it is they who are our allies.
> Of course this isn't our conscious motivation; it doesn't have to be.
> I also hypothesize that social allies were relatively more valuable in
> times of plenty, giving us an evolved tendency to spend more time in
> leisure as we get richer.
I do not get this at all -- it seems that bonds of social trust would have been more valuable in times of scarcity. I'd appreciate a brief explanation of this idea.
> So will the people who dominate the future be those who follow their
> evolutionary tendency to spend lots of time in leisure, or those who
> resist it to spend less time? Well, according to my theory that depends
> on the actual value of social bonding today relative to what we evolved
> to expect it to be. And damned if I know the answer to this.
Hmm -- you know, I interpreted this question to be more about "fun" than "idleness". Maybe we read "leisure" differently . . .
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<firstname.lastname@example.org> Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1 "Civilization is protest against nature; progress requires us to take control of evolution." Thomas Huxley