(2) The advent of information and knowledge revolutions lessened worker's dependence on a "brick and mortar" workplace and a "flesh and blood" employer. Cyberspace replaces real space and temporary or contractual work are preferred to tenure and corporate "loyalty".

Knowledge is not geography-dependent. It is portable and cheaply reproduced. The geographical locations of participants in economic interactions of this new age are transparent and immaterial.

(3) The mobility of goods and data (voice, visual, textual and other) increased exponentially. The twin revolutions of transportation and telecommunications reduced world to a global village. Phenomena like commuting to work and globe-straddling multinationals were first made possible. The car, airplane, facsimile messages, electronic mail, other forms of digital data, Internet - demolished many physical and temporal barriers. Workers today often collaborate in virtual offices across continents and time zones. Flextime and work from home replaced commuting. The very concepts of "workplace" and "work" were rendered fluid, if not obsolete.

(4) The dissolution of classic workplace is part of a larger and all-pervasive disintegration of other social structures, such as nuclear family. Thus, while choice of work-related venues and pursuits increased - number of social alternatives to work declined.

The extended and nuclear family was denuded of most of its traditional functions. Most communities are tenuous and in constant flux. Work is only refuge from an incoherent, fractious, and dysfunctional world. Society is anomic and work has become a route of escapism.

(5) The ideology of individualism is increasingly presented as a private case of capitalism and liberalism. People are encouraged to feel and behave as distinct, autonomous units. The metaphor of individuals as islands substituted for perception of humans as cells in an organism. Malignant individualism replaced communitarianism. Pathological narcissism replaced self-love and empathy.

(6) The last few decades witnessed unprecedented successive rises in productivity and an expansion of world trade. New management techniques, improved production technologies, innovative inventory control methods, automatization, robotization, plant modernization, telecommunications (which facilitates more efficient transfers of information), even new design concepts - all helped bring workaholism about by placing economic values in forefront. The Protestant work ethic ran amok. Instead of working in order to live - people began living in order to work.

Workaholics are rewarded with faster promotion and higher income. Workaholism is often - mistakenly - identified with entrepreneurship, ambition, and efficiency. Yet, really it is merely an addiction.

The absurd is that workaholism is a direct result of culture of leisure.

As workers are made redundant by technology-driven productivity gains - they are encouraged to engage in leisure activities. Leisure substitutes for work. The historical demarcation between work and leisure is lost. Both are commended for their contribution to economy. Work, like leisure, is less and less structured and rigid. Both work and leisure are often pursued from home and are often experienced as pleasurable.

The territorial separation between "work-place" and "home turf" is essentially eliminated.

Some people enjoy their work so much that it fulfils functions normally reserved to leisure time. They are workaholics. Others continue to hate work - but feel disorientated in new leisure-rich environment. They are not taught to deal with too much free and unstructured time, with a lack of clearly delineated framework, without clear instructions as to what to do, when, with whom, and to what end.

The state, parents, educators, employers - all failed to train population to cope with free time and with choice. Both types - workaholic and "normal" person baffled by too much leisure - end up sacrificing their leisure time to their work-related activities.

Alas, it takes workaholics to create, maintain and expand capitalism. People don't work or conduct business only because they are after money. They enjoy their work or their business. They find pleasure in it. And this is true meaning of capitalism: abolition of artificial distinction between work and leisure and pursuit of both with same zeal and satisfaction. Above all, (increasing) liberty to do so whenever, wherever, with whomever you choose.

I respectfully ask pro-choicers to put themselves in position of someone who believes so much in their convictions that they would be willing to sacrifice to point of death, to uphold them. Do you understand that a fetus, barring any complications, will grow to point of complete independence? With that being case, do you understand why someone would say that life does indeed begin at conception? As a woman, don't you understand that having ability to abort a fetus isn't power, it's responsibility? That responsibility gets shifted off both man and woman, and is put squarely on you. By insisting that it is your "choice", you have, for all intents and purpose, removed father's responsibility to not only assist in making that decision but also to care for child, after birth.

Wouldn't a "culture of life" need to address issues like poverty, crime, responsibility and famine? How can we allow children to be born into an environment where mother can't afford to feed, clothe, educate and protect herself? Why shouldn't fathers have as much legal responsibility to their children as mothers do? Why should women have sole responsibility for making decisions about termination of pregnancy? Why should anyone be faced with decision to terminate because they have no support, no food, no money, no healthcare, no way to provide and no hope?

Before condemning someone for having opinions or convictions that they do, why don't you try to first accept reality that these problems are real and affect people from every race, culture and economic status, and that complete understanding of these problems is necessary, before any real world solutions can be formulated? Both sides should agree that these problems are real. Both sides have different solutions to these problems, as each of you understands them. Neither side is completely right or wrong. Neither side has all answers. Neither side is only holder of truth. You can either combat each other or combat problem. You can either accept that there are good people with strongly held beliefs on both sides of aisle, and that you both seek to solve these very human problems, or you can dismiss each other and leave these issues for future generations to fight.

The first step in process of coming to any answers is communication, understanding, and tolerance of one another. The first step towards having a "culture of life" would be to promote these values.