[pm215]

The items in your list are largely ones which evolution has tied into feeling naturally good to most people, because it helps that we have an incentive to do them. (Cooking less so, but it is at least clearly and directly tied to the pleasant outcome of eating.) The sort of tasks we must to at work are usually not those which we're adapted to find innately enjoyable, and the link between them and outcomes we do want is often indirect enough that we know it only intellectually.

Secondly, the typical natural pace for the items on your list has peaks and troughs, natural downtime. Many jobs demand full effort for extended periods with not much downtime either on a daily cycle or a longer yearly one. That too we are not very well adapted for, I think.

[BobbyJo]

> The sort of tasks we must to at work are usually not those which we're adapted to find innately enjoyable, and the link between them and outcomes we do want is often indirect enough that we know it only intellectually.

So you agree that needing to do something doesn't automatically make it unenjoyable then?

> Secondly, the typical natural pace for the items on your list has peaks and troughs, natural downtime. Many jobs demand full effort for extended periods with not much downtime either on a daily cycle or a longer yearly one. That too we are not very well adapted for, I think.

I didn't say all jobs were fun. Most aren't, but not because they need doing. Needing to be done has almost nothing to do with how horrible a job is.

[Aerbil313]

> So you agree that needing to do something doesn't automatically make it unenjoyable then?

I’m not GP, but I’d say the things we need to do not being enjoyable is a deficiency and problem of the technological system, and not necessarily a solvable one. In a pre-tech world (e.g. 15th century), our needs were directly tied to our happiness due to biological reward circuits.

Ted Kaczynski argues about this point extensively in his books, I recommend esp. Technological Slavery, available free online.