The notion of expanding leisure time has been addressed here before in several posts, including those linked to below. Regarding the work-life balance campaign—some treat it as a crusade—I am a contrarian. That's why I appreciated this blog post by one of the neuroscientists for whom I have much respect Ian Robertson. (See the books by him I have recommended in my book lists at Brains on Purpose™.)
...A system that makes people work 70, 80 and a 100 hour weeks is essentially a middle class Gulag to which our youngest and brightest are sent.
Yet there is something about their argument I cannot quite buy. In my laboratory at Trinity College Dublin I have some very, very clever and hard working young people who work longer hours than I do because of a hunger to find out things about the world. The last thing they are motivated by is power – they are driven by a pure and rather beautiful drive to achieve something for the world – new knowledge, both for its own sake, and for the possible applications for the cure of disease that it might bring in its wake.
The thought of inculcating them into a 15 hour per week leisure culture just seems plain daft. The need for achievement for the worthiest of purposes motivates in a way that leisure dose not – leisure is the down-time from our life’s work, not its aim.
Amen to that!
Past posts on balance: