-- Bertrand Russell
-- Bertrand Russell
IMHO the first step to build an economic system where people work in a project because they want to, and not because they need to, is to defuse the protestant ethics that measure the worth of people based on how much they earn.
Russell's ideas could underline a new ethics that optimized the economy around what people likes to do the most, in special if the most unpleasant jobs can be automated away by robots.
Curious how you got this idea lodged in your head. There are so many examples that refute it that it's hard to know where to start. There are other prominent cultures which are much more concerned with displays of wealth than protestants (Chinese, for example). And then there are sub-cultures within the U.S. that are also more concerned with displays of wealth (watch some rap videos). And, generally speaking, my life experience is that more devout -> less concerned with material wealth. Then there's the protestant sect (Calvinists) who split from the Catholics because they believed in predestination, which would rule out how much you earn as a path to moral worth (in addition to good works).
I.e. I was talking about the Lutheran work ethic, which considers hard work and frugality virtuous, and leisure and munificence as moral failures. Other cultures think of free time, and expending on oneself and loved ones, as esencial to enjoy life.
The "problem" is that Star Trek has always been about the adventure at the frontier, with a quasi-military (and precisely how quasi varying based on series) organization exploring new worlds, meeting new civilizations, and fighting with well-known civilizations the Federation is currently struggling against. Very little time is devoted to the people at home actually living that post-scarcity existence.
(And, no, I don't see that as a problem. I like adventure-oriented Star Trek. It just means that these ideas have little relevance to that show.)
-- Bertrand Russell
I suspect that may be true for ephemeral leisure time or the little leisure time most people have. Give the average person a 20/hr work week and I’d assume they won’t fill the time with more tv.
If they were given an opportunity to travel the world, most would gladly take it.
Having free time isn't of much use if it isn't coupled with resources to do interesting things. Since most people have very limited resources - tv is the best bang for your buck way of spending the time.
- - - -
Cf. "What Are People For?" by Wendell Berry
And that's just the logic of existing in an environment of abundance. The larger issue is that abundance doesn't last. Resources quickly become scarce because populations grow to the environment's carrying capacity.
"Most countries in the developed world have seen average hours worked decrease significantly.[14][15] For example, in the U.S in the late 19th century it was estimated that the average work week was over 60 hours per week.[16] Today the average hours worked in the U.S. is around 33,[17] with the average man employed full-time for 8.4 hours per work day, and the average woman employed full-time for 7.9 hours per work day.[18] The front runners for lowest average weekly work hours are the Netherlands with 27 hours,[19] and France with 30 hours.[20] At current rates the Netherlands is set to become the first country to reach an average work week under 21 hours"
> At current rates the Netherlands is set to become the first country to reach an average work week under 21 hours
Turns out the "reference" is just a broken link to an old random blog post with no data that doesn't even make this claim.
I would be careful about believing anything on that page.