“If there is any truth to Idle Theory, then laziness is a virtue, not a vice. A disinclination to work is not a disorder, but an indispensable survival trait that evolved with the earliest forms of life. If so, the modern attempt by governments, industrialists, economists, and the like, to keep people busy and “usefully employed” runs entirely contrary to the nature, not only of human beings, but of life itself. This may begin to explain the anomie of modern Western culture.”

This guy’s right; example: australian aboriginal society. they were able to meet their survival needs with only about a 4-5 hour working day, while the brits who colonized australia worked at least twice as hard (for instance, fishing with a pole and bait when spearing a fish takes almost no time at all). i’ve read several good essays about the same subject, such as:
Working sucks

http://www.zenzibar.com/Articles/worksucks.asp

i’ve had this in pamphlet form for many years.

Is it just me or is does the evolutionary justification have the cause and effect backwards:

“Applied to the theory of evolution, this approach to life argues that during times when all creatures must work harder to survive, the least idle are the most likely to die, and the most idle are the most likely to survive. Natural selection favours the idlest. The fittest creatures are the idlest creatures, who survive to pass on their genes to subsequent generations.”

It seems to me that the most fit will be able to survive easier and, as a consequence, be more idle.  Saying “the least idle are most likely to die,” turns the issue on its head.  With regard to surrviving in hard times, the saying “die trying” comes to mind.  Self preservation dictates that the eventually unsuccessful criters will be less idle because if they don’t survive they’ll die trying to.