Work, is a most interesting conundrum. On one hand, in the United States, work or occupation is considered to give and be the meaning of ones life; one spends one's whole life, from education to countless years, sacrificing at the altar of work. Yet, at the same time, if one looks or reads of those great thinkers, scientists, artists, writers, and so on, one discovers that it was the very fact such persons were free of the duties of an occupation, that they began creating. This idea is most prevalent in our Universities; especially the scientific departments. Many profs, are freed up from teaching duties to focus on more important research.
Thus, I propose the hypothesis that work in the form of some money earning occupation, far from being a benefit, is actually quite the hindrance for human development. While we spend our years wasting away in some office or store, or other profession, we could be "working" on something more personally fulfilling, and something of great importance for all humanity.
Karl Marx, despite his cockamamied political ideology, was on to something when he wrote about work. In the Grundrisse he envisioned a time, in the not-to-distant future, when all persons would be required to work no more than four hours a day, or even less. The rest of the time would be spent on their own "development" if you will. This was a time, when there was not enough relevant or essential positions available due to efficiency and mechanization. Have we hit this stage or era (without thinking of some historical theory)? Are the millions of positions in this country really necessary anymore? No one produces anything anymore; there are less than 3 million farmers as well. Besides teachers, police and fireman, power plant operators, inspectors and the like, how many positions are even necessary? Do we really need these millions of sales and marketing, and business analysts, etc, etc, positions? And what about in the future, as technology expands even further, and more and more jobs are shipped overseas due to efficiency and cost? Will the idea of work be different; if so, what changes would be best?
Thus, I propose the hypothesis that work in the form of some money earning occupation, far from being a benefit, is actually quite the hindrance for human development. While we spend our years wasting away in some office or store, or other profession, we could be "working" on something more personally fulfilling, and something of great importance for all humanity.
Karl Marx, despite his cockamamied political ideology, was on to something when he wrote about work. In the Grundrisse he envisioned a time, in the not-to-distant future, when all persons would be required to work no more than four hours a day, or even less. The rest of the time would be spent on their own "development" if you will. This was a time, when there was not enough relevant or essential positions available due to efficiency and mechanization. Have we hit this stage or era (without thinking of some historical theory)? Are the millions of positions in this country really necessary anymore? No one produces anything anymore; there are less than 3 million farmers as well. Besides teachers, police and fireman, power plant operators, inspectors and the like, how many positions are even necessary? Do we really need these millions of sales and marketing, and business analysts, etc, etc, positions? And what about in the future, as technology expands even further, and more and more jobs are shipped overseas due to efficiency and cost? Will the idea of work be different; if so, what changes would be best?
