Discuss: Finding Time

Rather disingenuous way to introduce your theories to the conversation Luke. Why don’t you simply make a point in this thread, rather than coyly redirecting people to your thoughts elsewhere on the web?

Well, ok, Zack.  How about this:

In July of 1976, a Gallup Poll of the American people asked the following question:

As a new way to live in America, it has been suggested that we build our factories in the countryside and run them on part-time jobs.  Under this arrangement both parents would work three days a week and six hours a day, and in their spare time would build their own houses, cultivate gardens, and pursue other leisure-time activities.  How interested would you be in living this way?

Two-thirds of the American public expressed interest in the idea, including nearly half who said that they would definitely or probably like to live this way.  They represented a true cross-section of America, drawn from all ages, regions, and levels of society.

Would a similar number of Americans answer the same way if asked the same question today?  Given the present state of society and the world we live in, it seems very likely they would—in which case this little essay should find an audience.  For in it the youth who originally commissioned that poll, now grown older and wiser, has distilled the fruit of a lifetime of reflection and research into the practical possibilities of just such an arrangement.  The result is a guidebook to a new dispensation, whose aim is to inspire a new generation of Americans to take the future into their hands and shape it closer to their heart’s desire.

I agree that it is a pity that with all the technological conveniences and time-saving devices we have that our ancestors didn’t, we tend not to take advantage of this to spend more time just appreciating beauty. But this is a matter of choice. If you want to, you can have a much more fulfilling life than your ancestors whose lives were full of toil.

Also, I would argue that economic prosperity has always benefited the Arts. “The Renaissance” isn’t called that for nothing.

At the grassroots level, it is observable that the more prosperous people are, the more people are taking music lessons and providing their children with the same.

Furthermore, it is possible today to make acquaintance with more of the great repertoire than most of our ancestors. I wonder what the great composers themselves would have thought of the ability to acquaint themselves with recorded performances of ALL of the works of each other.

Some may argue that controlled economies like the former Soviet Union are better for the advancement of Art. It probably depends who you are. Rachmaninov, Stravinsky, and numerous other great artists voted with their feet and many others probably would have liked to. Some of these emigres were full of praise for the freedom and prosperity that they lived in the midst of in the U.S.A.

All the comments seem to refer to militate against changes.  I am in favor of the changes since they help me.  What I do NOT like is the way communication is corrupted so that the changes become undesirable and communication does NOT take place.  The result is war, killing, political lies and all other things flowing from using language to make all things have undesirable meaning.

I like the ideas expressed so far but I’d like to add another perspective. Slowing down, taking control, resisting bulldozing consumerism are all good ideas but I think it helps to understand more of why they are good ideas. We all know that they make us feel good in some way, but why?

I think it is because of our evolutionary development. The evolution of our species has created a creature that derives satisfaction from direct, physical, productive interaction with the environment, and beneficial interactions with other people. Those who embodied those traits most strongly passed their genes on in larger numbers than others. So we have inherited those affinities. And so much of what has been decried in the article and this forum is antithetical to those affinities. What we feel is not just a vague uneasiness with crass consumerism, but a grating discord between the day-to-day content of our lives and what we have evolved to value. I am hopeful that an understanding of this very real causal link between the current state of affairs and our angst will motivate more folks to act on their apprehension.

It’s an old idea that should be incorporated into this new ecological ethic, Bob; cf. “Civilization and its Discontents;” Marx’s characterization of man as a producer; on it goes.

I get her point, but really, would she prefer Waste, Hassle, Poverty and Peril?

What could possibly make us want to forsake all of these pleasures of life? Are we mere children, easily diverted from our wholesome play by some tawdry trinkets? Or is it that WE are Ok but it is THEY who are being used and misled.
If so then let us say so and inform those less aware of just what they are giving up, or, if we were once one of THEM, let us teach
the unfortunate how they too may
join us in our celebration of life.