I agree. I read a book about Godel a year or two ago, but I can't remember the name right now. I think there is a distinction between "work" and something that you choose to do.

@Fanburger that is not the case. However I suppose I will have to leave it to you to tell me what is not work then. The dictionary has two definitions one is about effort expended to achieve a purpose this would be the case in my examples, but this is so broad as to imply that only random events are not work. The second is about earning a living which is not the case in my examples. More telling are the synonyms and antonyms for the word 'work'

1. activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.
   "he was tired after a day's work in the fields"
   synonyms: labor, toil, slog, drudgery, exertion, effort, industry, service; More
   informalgrind, sweat, elbow grease;
   literarytravail
   "a day's work in the fields"
   antonyms: leisure, rest

   a place or premises for industrial activity, typically manufacturing.
   "he found a job in the ironworks"

2. mental or physical activity as a means of earning income; employment.
   "I'm still looking for work"
   synonyms: employment, a job, a position, a situation, a post;

these show what most people view work as. Godel did not work he more played, he did not have to do what he did and if you read the Wikipedia article he was more or less just trying everything he felt interested in. There was no need to complete anything there was no purpose to it. He did study and work at problems but this was done because he wanted to do them not because he needed the money. We could also talk about Wittgenstein who barely worked a day in his life producing an incomprehensible book about philosophy after living in a hovel for several years. What does tie my line of thought and what I am trying to illustrate, is that for most people work is something planed, something that is more of a societal ritual then an individual's effort to achieve a goal. This is the issue with the idea of work: it is not, in fact, referring to an effort toward a goal or purpose, rather it is referring to obtaining the means to survive. Thus working involves following rules that have nothing to do with the goal or skill you perform at 'work' and these rules have come to define what is and what is not work. I can program in my spare time but this is not work because it is not meeting the criteria that has been set forth, so it becomes recreational. If it is a very good program it may become an academic marvel but it is still not work.

@tnorman1236 the last one I read that had him in it was about the Vienna Circle. It is called "Exact Thinking in Demented Times" sub title: The Vienna circle and the epic quest for the foundation of science. It has probably the best explanation of what the Godel incompleteness theorem is and what it was all about. I highly recommend it.

@RavenMunnin The one I read was "Incompleteness - The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Godel" by Rebecca Goldstein.

@tnorman1236 I may check it out

I'm not sure about that. Yes, having a purpose is good psychologically, and for most of us, there's no way to get out of work altogether, but some people make a fetish of work, to the neglect of lots of other things.

how could we have 'evolved' this? 'work' is not some sort of natural state, it is a cultural invention. If you mean we need to be active and not drinking beer all day then you are agreeing with what the article is saying.

@RavenMunnin

Yes of course it is a cultural invention, but that doesn't preclude it from being natural, you're not wielding the language properly.

Because humans have been working for centuries. In the context of civilization, the one who worked would make more money, and thus be able to reproduce with more of a probability of success. This is an artificial evolutionary selection mechanism for people who are work-oriented, which can contribute to a psychological and physical dependency on working, due to the labor and earning aspect.

I think the notion that work is not natural is just a political argument with no scientific merit to it for this reason.

@DZhukovin Evolution doesn't work that fast. Twenty generations doesn't cut it.

@Gareth

Why do you think this is the case?

@DZhukovin genetics and population size.
Second, you make the statement that "the one who worked would make more money" you know this to be false. work particularly in the past could not even guarantee subsistence. As I am sure you are familiar with the phrase "beast of burden" and you are also familiar with the reason humans dominate the planet, you will be forced to acknowledge that if anything it is subterfuge and getting others to do the work for us (this is a much more rewarding evolutionary strategy at all levels) then hard work. It is our brains and constant quest to do less 'work' and more of the things that are not repetitive and uninteresting that has allowed us to develop the tools to get where we are. I realize this is just my view but at the very least, your notion that work caused a micro evolutionary leap when it is quite clear that competing strategies are, if not better, certainly valid enough, make such a statement premature.

I was lucky enough to be able to afford to retire early, though I'm pretty poor because of it. But I'm making it!

@tnorman1236 I retired at age 56 and have been retired for over 23 years. I live a very good life, good health, financially secure and stress free.

@jlynn37 Kudos, sir.