From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Thu Jan 24 2002 - 09:38:08 MST
Emlyn O'regan wrote:
>
> > I think you miss the point, Harvey: "work" is, by definition, time
> > spent in pursuits other than what would be one's first choice of
> > what to do with that time. If you work for 12 hours to earn enough
> > to increase your lifespan by only 8 hours, then you haven't really
> > increased your "life" span at all--just your "work" span. You've
> > actually lost 4 hours of "life"--life is doing what /you/ want with
> > your time.
>
> Man, you guys must really hate your jobs.
>
> Seriously, this definition:
> > "work" is, by definition, time
> > spent in pursuits other than what would be one's first choice of
> > what to do with that time.
>
> is really pretty sad. Just say someone had an idea about what they really
> wanted to do, hmm, like research into nanotechnology, and went out and
> acquired the skills. If said person then managed to get work in that field,
> the work they wanted, what would you call that employment arrangement? A
> paid hobby?
Well, my favorite hobbies are, not necessarily in this order:
1) sleeping
2) fishing
3) hunting
4) reading/writing
5) playing with computers
6) graphic design
7) playing with rockets
8) skiing
9) inventing things
My last position combined 4,5, and 6 pretty well, but I still didn't
enjoy the work, because it was work oriented toward someone else's
goals, they were very bad at taking my advice, and they were delinquent
in pay raises despite professing to love my work. I consider a large
chunk of the 4.5 years I spent with them to be 'dead' time.
It is possible to do the things you love for work but still be bored
stiff and dissatisfied. Similarly, I've worked on and off as a ski
instructor for many years. Full time ski instructing is highly
debilitating upon ones love of the sport. A few years I skied so much
that I was relieved the season was over, and I stuck my skis in the
closet and didn't want to look at them till the next winter.
>
> The point here is that you could actually make money doing what you want to
> do, and use that money to extend your life. This very cruddy tradeoff
> relationship of Mike's, where you count hours worked = hours dead, would
> then not apply (which I don't think it does anyway).
The point is that even of those who do what they want to do for a
living, working it full time doesn't really compare to spending the same
hours with family, friends, or doing other things as they strike your
fancy, not as demanded by a work schedule. Of those who do what they
want for a living, only a small fraction would rather do that work than
relaxing and enjoying life.
Man is not an automaton, and the 40 hour work week is the last vestige
of industrial tyranny over the individual.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:36 MST