What our world has become.
POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Monday, June 29, 2026 21:34
VIEWED: 23018
PAGE 8 of 20
Finn- If you look at gatherer-hunter cultures (Kung, amazonia) you'll find that they have MORE free time than we do: they spend only about 4 hours a day on "taking care of business".
Agricultural societies had extended periods of enforced idleness (winter) and civilzations which existed before cheap lighting also had periods of enforced idleness (night). The 16-hour workday and todays go-go-go 24/7 pace didn't exist before the light bulb. Agriculturalists performed more physical labor before, but they were necessarily limited by darkness and weather.
I'm not saying that we should go back to those days. But in a modern economy where we have so many labor-saving devices, why do we have a society where people feel that cannot even spare a glance at something different, non-threatening, and - by many people's judgement- beautiful?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But in a modern economy where we have so many labor-saving devices, why do we have a society where people feel that cannot even spare a glance at something different, non-threatening, and - by many people's judgement- beautiful?
But who says that they "feel they cannot"?
They didn't. For various reasons. Why is up to interpretation and probably spans a certain spectrum.
And "different" is also a guess. I see street musicians, of varying talent, every day. Every. Day. More than one, generally, a couple of feet apart. My city is not even that big.
I imagine it's the same in other cities. Why, then must I look at them and consider one of them different in order to avoid the judgment box of "culturally bereft by modern life", as apparently all these people are put in because they didn't glance up?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t believe that at all. It’s about that long to make a single Clovis point.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- If you look at gatherer-hunter cultures (Kung, amazonia) you'll find that they have MORE free time than we do: they spend only about 4 hours a day on "taking care of business".
Quote:I don’t know many people who work 16 hour days regularly. But in an Amish community, my understanding is that the work day is sun-up to sun-down, which is probably around 12-14 hours a day, and that is regular, 6 days a week.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Agricultural societies had extended periods of enforced idleness (winter) and civilzations which existed before cheap lighting also had periods of enforced idleness (night). The 16-hour workday and todays go-go-go 24/7 pace didn't exist before the light bulb. Agriculturalists performed more physical labor before, but they were necessarily limited by darkness and weather.
Now as far as long periods of idleness during the winter, that’s true, but that’s not really what I meant by free time, and it’s not what was meant by this article, either. Sitting around doing nothing while you wait to find out if you’ll starve to death before harvest is not what I would call “free time.” Today, I have access to a large amount of culture that I can use my free time to take my mind off of the daily grind..
If I work a 16 hour day, I choose to do so, because I know or believe that it will pay off for me, but I’m not going to die if I don’t. A hundred or more years ago, that wasn’t the case: you worked a 10-14 hour or you died, and when you did have free time, there wasn’t anything to do. Now THAT is stress.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Why, then must I look at them and consider one of them different in order to avoid the judgment box of "culturally bereft by modern life", as apparently all these people are put in because they didn't glance up?
You're so defensive! Is anyone putting them in that box? I certainly wasn't, and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. My point on that subject was more that the ADULTS were largely (not entirely) either preoccupied with obligations or already had an expectation about the musician (i.e. he's on the street so he can't be very good) so they refrained from interacting with the environment so dramatically they didn't even glance at him. Prejudice? Responsibility? Disinterest? I'm sure all three were present and represented by the passers-by.
Don't make faces.
http://amaranton.wordpress.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:I don’t believe that at all.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- If you look at gatherer-hunter cultures (Kung, amazonia) you'll find that they have MORE free time than we do: they spend only about 4 hours a day on "taking care of business".
It's actually true, and that was going to be my point as well. For evidence you can look to any anthropology book (if you want a particular one, Applying Anthropology by Podolefsky and Brown is an easy but enjoyable introductory readder).
But I think you're absolutely right about the responses – some of them genuinely regretted it and some of them simply "had the music put in context," if you will, once they learned who was performing – which was another of the author's main points (re: Kant).
Don't make faces.
http://amaranton.wordpress.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by marina:
You're so defensive! Is anyone putting them in that box? I certainly wasn't, and I'm sorry if it sounded that way.
If the implication wasn't that there must be something wrong with not having looked at the musician, would we even be talking about this?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If the implication wasn't that there must be something wrong with not having looked at the musician, would we even be talking about this?
We? Not sure. People in general? Yes.
Look, one could read this article and come away thinking it said something meaningful about:
a) lack of appreciation for classical music
b) the rush of modern urban lifestyles
c) the intrinsic value (rather lack thereof) of classical music
d) the interactions between commuters and people living or working on the street
so on and so forth. Most people spent about 35 seconds where they could hear the music (up the escalator and out the door) and I don't know if I would be able to differentiate between a "talented" and an "average" musician in that period of time. So yes, I think there are more layers to the experiment than a straightforward value judgment.
Don't make faces.
http://amaranton.wordpress.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Amazonian tribes are a pre-civilization culture; that’s not really what I was thinking about anyway. Although I find that incredibly hard to believe. I’ve survived in the wilderness before with no food or shelter. It’s an all day affair just to keep yourself warm, dry and fed. I suppose that environment has a lot to do with it, and maybe in a place as lush as the Amazon, you can gather enough food to survive with only a 4 hours work day. It’s hard for me to envision, but I’ll see if I can find this book and maybe I can learn something.
Originally posted by marina:
It's actually true, and that was going to be my point as well. For evidence you can look to any anthropology book (if you want a particular one, Applying Anthropology by Podolefsky and Brown is an easy but enjoyable introductory readder).
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by marina:
Most people spent about 35 seconds where they could hear the music (up the escalator and out the door) and I don't know if I would be able to differentiate between a "talented" and an "average" musician in that period of time. So yes, I think there are more layers to the experiment than a straightforward value judgment.
When you even remove the distinguishing factor of talent, you have an experiment that is set up like this:
1) Put something not at all unusual on the street.
2) Watch people not pay it much attention.
The fact that anyone was surprised at all is a value judgment in and of itself. If anything, this article says something about the expectations of the people behind it, so yes, a dicussion about biased people could be started, I guess.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
why do we have a society where people feel that cannot even spare a glance at something different, non-threatening, and - by many people's judgement- beautiful?
Because if we don't get to work on time we risk getting fired. It's been said before and I'll say it again, if they did the experiment at lunch, or even really any time other than rush hour they probably would have gotten much more staisfying results. The people who went by were planning their days, thinking about problems that needed to be fixed at work and all manner of other things, they tuned out of the usual environmental factors (which includes street musicians) so that they can get to work on time. It keeps getting said but doesn't seem to get through, this was a poorly designed experiment which got predictable results that are being blown entirely out of proportion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME