Assertion:
if something is important enough to you, you'll make time
for it. So if you don't have time, it's probably just
not important enough to you. (It doesn't matter whether
"it" is a hobby, a political cause, reading the daily
newspaper, watching a certain TV show, or whatever.)
An objection I saw raised to this (in a protected
entry) was, basically,
that people are busy, so being too busy doesn't
mean the thing isn't important. But that misses
the point, I think.
Yes, of course people are busy. I'm certainly
very busy, at least. But my not having time for a
given activity does not pass a value judgement on the
activity -- just on that activity for me at this
time.
Maybe I'm weird, but when I consider taking on something
new, I ask myself where the time will come from. It
has to come from somewhere, after all, and
those college-age days of just saying "I'll sleep
less" are long past. Certain time commitments are
non-negotiable: job, family time, sleep, religious
commitments. (That's not an ordered list.) All
else is optional. (Of course commitments once made must
be kept absent permission to break them. I'm not
talking about that; I'm talking about the initial
decision to take on the activity/commitment.)
When my music group (On the Mark) started, I realized
that for me the time would come from the informal
instrumental group I was playing with.
When I became generally more active on the net,
that time came from casual reading (particularly
science fiction).
When I started using LiveJournal, I dropped some
mailing lists and put the final nail in the
Usenet coffin. When I began to spend more
time on religion, that time came from SCA involvement.
(Within the "SCA" box there has also been an ebb
and flow -- fighting gave way to choir,
dancing to brewing (and music), archery to scribal
time, scribal time to dance research (and persona
research), and so on.) When I recently became
chair of a synagogue committee, I planned for an
easy initial chunk of time until my board term
ends in May. And, yeah, there was one season
of Babylon 5 for which the answer was "sleeping
less one night a week isn't so bad".
The point is: to do things you have to give up other
things. Sometimes there's nothing you are ready to
give up, and that's a sign that you shouldn't be
taking on that new thing right now. (Again thinking
about the SCA, sometimes college freshmen fail
to anticipate the competing time demands of SCA
activities and classes. Classes have to come
first.) Sometimes there are things you could
give up but the new activity just isn't important
enough for you to do so -- maybe your weekly
commitment to fighting practice is more important
than a new gaming group. So you don't "have time"
for the gaming group, but if your situation were
different you would have time for gaming and no
longer have time for fighting.
There are only so many hours in the day. When
something new comes along, I ask myself: is there
anything I'm doing, and that I'm not committed
to, that is less interesting than this new thing?
If so, I consider a swap. If not, then I don't
have time for the new thing right now, though
I might have a year ago or might a year from now.