Laziness is a innate human condition that should be praised rather than catastrophised

That's a provocative viewpoint that challenges the common cultural narrative around laziness. While society often catastrophizes idleness as a moral failing or a sign of poor character, arguments can be made for seeing certain forms of laziness as beneficial or even a sign of efficiency and intelligence.

The idea that we should praise, rather than condemn, a tendency toward ease rests on several points:

• Efficiency and Innovation: The “lazy” person often seeks the simplest, fastest, and least effortful way to complete a task. This drive can lead to streamlining processes, automating chores, and inventing better tools—the very mechanisms that drive productivity in the modern world. Many inventions were born from a desire to avoid tedious work.
• Cognitive Rest and Problem Solving: Periods of rest and seemingly idle time are crucial for cognitive function and creativity. The brain uses this downtime for the default mode network (DMN), which is associated with processing information, consolidating memories, and non-linear, insightful problem-solving. This is why solutions often “pop” into your head when you're doing something else.
• Prioritization and Focus: A reluctance to engage in low-value, busy work can be a powerful filter. People who avoid effort may be better at prioritizing what truly matters, conserving finite energy for tasks that yield the highest return. This is essentially a form of strategic resource management.
• Well-being and Avoiding Burnout: Chronic overwork and the glorification of “hustle culture” lead to stress, burnout, and reduced long-term productivity. “Laziness,” in this context, can be interpreted as self-preservation—a refusal to exhaust oneself unnecessarily, thus ensuring sustainability.

Wher laziness is truly an “innate human condition” is complex:

• Biological Imperative: From an evolutionary standpoint, conserving energy ($E$) was essential for survival. Since resources were scarce and finding food/shelter required effort, the body developed a preference for resting when possible to preserve energy stores for necessary activities (fight, flight, reproduction). In this sense, a predisposition to avoid unnecessary effort is biologically programmed. This biological drive for energy conservation can be represented by the basic principle of minimizing expenditure:

$$E_{spent} \rightarrow \min$$

• Cultural Conditioning: However, the level and type of effort we expend are heavily influenced by culture. In many Western societies, the Protestant work ethic and capitalist values have intensely favored relentless activity, associating idleness with guilt and failure.

The issue usually lies in the type of “laziness”:

To praise it effectively, the distinction must be made: we should praise the strategic avoidance of effort that leads to a better outcome, but we must still address the avoidance of necessary action that stems from apathy or fear (a common sliptun is confusing the to).

The viewpoint you present suggests a shift from measuring effort to measuring outcome and sustainability. Do you want to explore the cognitive science behind why the brain needs downtime, or perhaps look at how different cultures view work and rest?