I know two people who watch zero television, me and one other guy. I have a big television but I have never turned it on. I unplugged it last November so my puppy would not chew the cord and I never plugged it back in.The two people that each of us is most social with happen to watch a good bit of television. So this seems a good opportunity for comparison: Does watching television shows result in less time spent doing work, or other activities like going boating or to pubs?It seems nothing good can happen when you are watching a television. So the mere possibility of actually doing something, seems to guarantee not watching television would have some good outcomes. Unless you stare at the wall, you must do something, which must amount to more than the zero of staring at a television on the wall.But when looking at actual people, it seems the theory is wrong. First of all, it seems people who watch television shows can spend a lot of time at work also. And they can work very long hours, and still find time to watch television. There seems to be no correlation between watching less television and getting more work done.So far as non-work activities, it seems they do increase when you find something to do other than watching television shows. But these alternative activities, such as floating around the bay on a boat, getting sunburned, drinking beer, or driving to and wandering around Home Depot, are not only worthless, but in fact more costly than watching television.If you were a paintbrush, sometimes it is good to put the paintbrush on the shelf. After you have painted the walls and the floor, it is better to do nothing than paint the dog. If you have run out of paint, it only damages the paintbrush to drag it across things for no reason. So like a tool, sometimes you should put yourself on the shelf.In summary, there are activities whose cost is greater than their benefit. And there are activities with very low priority. These activities should be replaced with watching television, for an overall benefit.