Impractical? Maybe, but it ignites the conversation

The idea of a Four-Hour Work Day might quickly be shown to have little practicality and so be absolutely unworkable.

A cartoonist's image of A.C. Grayling.

Whatever its failings, if it has any, the idea will, if nothing else, ignite a conversation about the reasons we work, the value it has for the broader wellbeing of society and of course individuals, and whether or not in its contemporary understanding, it is integral to the health of communities.

The challenge of course is to reposition ourselves to avoid having our gaze limited by viewing what it is and how we live through the modern prism of a corporate controlled world in which profits and therefor mercenary aims are put ahead of the welfare of people.

Even small businesses in small towns that employ local people and answer local needs are, by default, controlled by the corporate ideology in that their viability can be, and is, directly influenced by the behaviour of corporations.

Just recently, the humanist philosopher, A.C. Grayling, talked about the importance of acting decidedly and intent to ensure you built a worthy life through which you made a laudable contribution to your community and so society generally.

Grayling emphasized the limited time we each have (300 months for those who live to 80 – meaning 960 months, less time spent sleeping, eating and in ablutions, and general wasting of time – leaves just 300 months) and so that available time to enrich our lives would be near doubled if we were involved in traditional work for only four-hours a day.

Arrival at the point of four-hour work days is not easy (nothing of any value is easy, or course), but it is not until we ignite the discussion can we even begin to understand what we would need in the way of changes to live more fulfilling and complete lives.