Putting aside the mildly insulting nature of your second paragraph, I'll just say that I agreed with much of what you right write in your first and third paragraph when I was younger. Time seemed infinite, and all I wanted to do was discover as much theater as I could.
Now that I'm middle-aged and spend my days reading plays, going to play readings, writing about plays, thinking about plays, dramaturging plays, attending play rehearsals, and attending meetings about plays and rehearsals, I have a different perspective. Going to theater often feels like work to me, and if it's not going to be a rewarding experience, then it feels like hard work. Life is short and time is finite, and there are many things that I could do with those evenings than sit through a play that I have a hard time getting enthusiastic about, particularly if I feel like I've seen similar work (or better work) before.
I didn't introduce this question by putting all that out there, but since I was asked, I chose to be honest about the conflicts I feel. I'm by no means complaining, I just wanted to get a sense of whether sitting through "Spoonriver" is better than, say, catching a sunset and taking a walk up to the top of Prospect Park and enjoying the miracle of life while I'm still alive to live it.