News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant... by marcusverus on Wednesday August 12, 2020 @05:59PM (#24137516)
I'm not sure that this little nugget of wisdom has withstood the test of time. The average number of hours worked has fallen dramatically since the 30s[0] even as interest in passive entertainment has skyrocketed.

[0]https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/

Re:Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant... by josho on Wednesday August 12, 2020 @06:12PM (#24137645)
The core of it stands that 'urban populations have become mainly passive'. Perhaps I'd consider revising to replace passive with consumers. So, we've been taught and continually urged to spend our idle hours consuming. So, it isn't a surprise to me that most folks don't know any other way to spend their time.
Re:Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant... by goldenkey on Wednesday August 12, 2020 @06:50PM (#24138004)
Consumption usually costs money and increases money velocity, which leads to a better economy. So it's a bit different than "idleness."
Re:Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant... by brokenmachine on Thursday August 13, 2020 @01:23AM (#24140181)
A better economy... Please define "better".
Re:Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant... by goldenkey on Thursday August 13, 2020 @03:01PM (#24146951)
Money is worse when its velocity is low. This is associated with hoarding of cash.

The world could have 10000T in cash but if no exchange happens, everyone is poor.

Re:Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant... by brokenmachine on Friday August 14, 2020 @02:31AM (#24154435)
Endless consumption is a delusion, regardless of how much "better" the economy appears.

Idleness doesn't necessitate consumption, and it's interesting that that conclusion was jumped to.

Re:Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant... by isaachawley on Thursday August 13, 2020 @04:55AM (#24141278)
Leisure != time outside of work. If you're commuting, if you're too exhausted to get off the couch, if you're on-call and worrying about interruptions, then you're not truly at leisure.
Re:Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant... by perfunctory on Wednesday August 12, 2020 @06:08PM (#24137613)
> as interest in passive entertainment has skyrocketed

I would like to see some data on this. It may seem like it but I would say it's quite the opposite.

Re:Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant... by logarhythmic on Thursday August 13, 2020 @04:15AM (#24141083)
Why do you think so?
Re:Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant... by perfunctory on Thursday August 13, 2020 @05:01AM (#24141314)
I dunno. Here is just one random stat that came to mind. Boston marathon participation throughout the years

  1897 - 18
  1930 - 218
  1970 - 1174
  2000 - 17813
  2019 - 30234
https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/results/participat...

Still, would be interesting to see some comprehensive study on active leisure.

Re:Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant... by steakknife on Monday August 17, 2020 @10:48AM (#24187815)
Meh. I would bet that has way more to do with the cost of travelling to Boston for the average person around the world and the growth in prestige of that particular event.

Also, athleisure is "active" in the literal sense, but is it contributing anything back to society? I guess one could argue it collectively reduces the cost of our growing passiveness. But I would argue, as someone who loves exercising, that exercise is just a video game that makes you feel progressively better the longer you play it instead of worse. It doesn't serve a broader purpose beyond a certain point of basic health, unless you are so good that other people derive satisfaction from your accomplishments (pro athlete) or you are doing it to form social connections (golf, intramural sports leagues, etc.) or like break a world record or something.