>I'm going to propose that, probably, everything the ancients did was labour intensive. Predominately due to not having invented the powered machine yet.
Or, inversely, as soon as they covered their food needs (which could be quite meagre) they were pretty leisurely, like many primitive tribes the ethnologists have studied.
honestly you've got to wonder whether we're the primitive ones considering a lot of those tribes work less than 20 hours per week
I've read that a leading theory as the transition from hunter-gatherer to agricultural societies was that agricultural societies incentivized larger populations, were able to sustain them, and that their desire for arable land led them to fight - so the transition was not as much towards qualitatively better lifestyle but towards a qualitatively stronger lifestyle. As much as I enjoy beer, I find this more compelling than the theory that people chose to pick up farming just to drink
I think there's a balance between technological and economic advancement and what really matters (creativity, love, friendship, leisure, no stress, etc) - and we're awful at striking that balance because we let society run on automaton.
It's a good joke, but kind of a mediocre parable. The thing is, I don't think anyone would disagree that, all else being equal, living in a small fishing village, sleeping late, etc., would be better if you were a millionaire. The question then is which parts aren't equal between the two scenarios, and which of those are more important to you. I guess it's helpful as a prompt to consider that question.
>It's a good joke, but kind of a mediocre parable. The thing is, I don't think anyone would disagree that, all else being equal, living in a small fishing village, sleeping late, etc., would be better if you were a millionaire.
That's not the meaning of the parable though.
The meaning is that you can enjoy such things without being a millionaire.
Tons of people have been sold a rat-race stressful life in "careers", when they can achieve their ultimate goals with much more modest means (and in less stressful occupations).
you're right, but I guess the problem for me is that I would just feel helpless if I went straight for being the fisherman. If you have a war chest from your corporate career, it doesn't matter if your area has political instability or crime or suffers from overfishing. You never have to worry about your kids wanting to go to an expensive school or getting a serious illness (at least, financially).
To me it would seem selfish to choose that life knowing that dependents (parents, children, spouse, whatever) might end up comparatively worse for it. Of course that's not a problem if you don't have any of those, or don't care
Or, inversely, as soon as they covered their food needs (which could be quite meagre) they were pretty leisurely, like many primitive tribes the ethnologists have studied.