Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you had a year to live, you would definitely want to be productive. You'd be surprised. That's more of rat-race-disease artifact, where a person is measured by their "achievements" and "success" (as opposed to being intristically worth). Many people of many peoples would want to either relax, love and be with family, or enjoy themselves (and more likely a healthy combination of the two).
And unless you're completely free of obligations, you'd want to maximize the time you spent "relaxing, loving and being with family, or enjoying yourself". This requires some thought and effort - and that's precisely being productivity / optimizing your life.
However, it's a model which isn't free of criticisms. For instance:
> In their extensive review of research based on Maslow's hierarchy, Wahba and Bridwell found little evidence for the ranking of needs that Maslow described or for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all. [2]
or
> Maslow's hierarchy of needs fails to illustrate and expand upon the difference between the social and intellectual needs of those raised in individualistic societies and those raised in collectivist societies. The needs and drives of those in individualistic societies tend to be more self-centered than those in collectivist societies, focusing on improvement of the self, with self-actualization being the apex of self-improvement. In collectivist societies, the needs of acceptance and community will outweigh the needs for freedom and individuality. [3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003050... [3] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Maslow%27s-Hierarchy-o...
Your statement also hides an assumption:
> unless you're completely free of obligations
Your obligations might be different from my obligations. And then there's the question who determines those obligations. Those same family and friends? Employers? A legal framework? Cultural norms and values? Religion even? To what extent are those truly set in stone? And to what extent are many mundane obligations a figment of your own mind? Something you subconsciously force upon yourself to make sense of the world and maintain your own identity? And how does all of this tie into a philosophical tradition of discussing determinism and free will?
The same is also true when it comes to "enjoying yourself". Ultimately, what one person enjoys on their own accord could feel like an absolute requirement or obligation to someone else. Context matters a ton in that regard.
For instance, you might live in a context where you love making artisan bread as a hobby or a pass time. Something you don't need to do - you can easily buy bread - but something you do simply because it brings you happiness. And at the same time, there are people for who making bread at home is something they have to do if they want to food on the table, which turns this into an obligation.
> This requires some thought and effort - and that's precisely being productivity / optimizing your life.
Talking about productivity and optimization only works when you do so in a concrete context. When you discuss priorities, and, crucially, acknowledge that the next person will have different priorities from you simply because their life is uniquely different from yours.
Tracking time and assigning value to what you do with each hour of your life can be worthwhile, but it can only empower you if you are also intrinsically motivated to engage in an activity.
It's perfectly reasonable to track the time you spend reading books, and set a goal to spend more time, reading more books in 2021 compared by last year. It's unreasonable to expect that this line of reasoning applies to everyone.
Plenty people read simply because they enjoy reading, but they feel absolutely no need to track the number of books they have read, or put an utilitarian meaning or assign economic value to how much they read.