[casey2]

Quite a few fallacies in the article the largest relating to evolution. Sure we aren't evolutionary predisposed to work, but Europeans, North Africans, Asians are genetically and we have plenty of ancestors and examples of life that spend their whole lives working

[amanaplanacanal]

It's hard to know how long evolution takes to work in some of these things. Are we still better adapted to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, even if we have hundreds of generations with agriculture now? This is essentially the same question that adherents of "primal" or "paleo" diets and lifestyles ask.

On the one hand, humans are pretty adaptable. We had colonized a large part of the world even before the invention of agriculture. Some adaptations, like loss of skin pigmentation in Europeans, happened relatively quickly, we think.

On the other hand, other adaptations, like the ability to digest lactose into adulthood relied on specific mutations that still haven't spread through the whole population.

I suspect that we would be happier with less work, and more time socializing, singing and dancing, and more time in nature, but how would you ever prove it?

[fragmede]

Stick electrodes into everyone's brains so they can get a measure of how happy people are, and then they can run experiments on us.

[tomjakubowski]

> Sure we aren't evolutionary predisposed to work, but Europeans, North Africans, Asians are genetically

What?