Oh, To Devolve!

Here's a simple but sobering thought.

Things--People, society, technology--evolve. They "advance" naturally. Well, for humans they do. One of the laws of thermodynamics is basically the "chaos" theory. That things in a closed system will naturally go from order to disorder.

In animal circles, let's just say wolves, you don't necessarily see things getting more chaotic, but at least they don't tend to get more advanced. Old diseases are adapted to just as new diseases are introduced.

Human society is not a closed system. (I'm just theorizing here.) That's because we know how to build off of our ancestors. Any animal learns from it's own behavior, but except for natural microevolutionary "progress" (survival of the fittest), I don't think one generation knows "more" than the previous one.

Humans do. Because of communication and technology and medicine, we continue to "thrive" after a few millenia, rather than having a population that fluctuates in relationship with other species. (Christians might use a "sinner's in the hands of an angry God" approach. That God could let nature wipe us out at any moment and at any speed.)

That's enough background. So why am I sobered? What if our ancestors saw us now? Would they be envious? What are the other paths human society evolution could have taken? And which is best?

Humans' evolution consisted of periods, and I'm just thinking of these as I go, so this isn't an exhaustive, perfect, or even chronological list:
1a.) Survival at the hands/claws/beaks/etc. of other species
1b.) Survival against plants, bacteria, and disease
2a.) Survival against each other
2b.) Successful conquering or defending (after multiple groups exist in close proximity*)
3.) Continued survival while either advancing or maintaining current technology

*Proximity is relative to transportation technology.

And here's my opinion:
I'd sacrifice technology for simplicity.
I'd sacrifice working in front of a computer for working the land. (not NOW, but back then)

So would it have been possible not to advance technologically? Here's a sample progression. Someone has better land and better food. I gather my friends and beat them away. Some of their group joins mine. We are better protected, better fed, and richer. Any poor guy walking down the street wants some, so he tries to take some. So we have to advance our technology to either protect ourselfs against attack, or kill the attackers. A couple thousand years later, that's all we're basically trying to do. Protect ourselves and make money doing so. Then spend our money on comforts and recreation and necessities.

Let's say we still had our safety and the necessities, but not all the technology. We'd still work hard every day so that we could trade and get the other things that we don't have time to produce. But we wouldn't have to worry about all the things we have to worry about today. Probably mostly because we could learn to get along without having a tv and a trampoline. What if humans had enough self control to understand: If I steal from someone else so I don't have to do the work (or even if I just work harder!), I'll get richer. The unevenness of society and constant competition will mean everyone has to work harder to keep up. And as one person gets richer, another will get poorer. And as that rich person gets 5 times as rich, then 15 people will get poorer and will have to work harder to have a somewhat decent life for the 10% of the time that they're not working or paying bills!

That would never work, but you can see where ideas like Communism might come from. There's always at least one idiot. And once we see that one idiot advancing, the rest of us try to keep up.

So what can we do now? Basically our answer is to try to get rich for maybe 60% of our lives. Then if it doesn't work, we just decide to retire with the best pension plan. I truly abhor nerds like Donald Trump and Bill Gates. They are going to die with billions, and donate it to some school or people going to school to just continue the cycle, because they think we're all wishing we could be rich like them. If they weren't rich, and so many people weren't trying to follow, we wouldn't have to struggle to keep up. What if they gave 3/4 of their money to people with none?

I always say that well off actors and other celebrities shouldn't be praised for giving half of their money away, they should be expected to do that.

Thoughts?

Double Duty Thank You

A guy just held the door for me. It wasn't early enough to be awkward. If someone holds the door and you're 15 steps away, it's just awkward, and you don't even want to say thank you, because chances are you just jogged to the door. It's almost like you're doing them a favor. They're in the mood to do something nice, and to help them, you jog.

BUT, it was early enough to warrant two thanks. It was just barely too late for the first thank you to be a half smile*. My face didn't have time to react, and trying to make eye contact and maintain in time to half smile* at that distance would have been embarrassing. So instead I said "thanks" two steps before reaching the actual doorway. And since he insisted on doing a really good job of holding it, that is, waiting till I was all the way through to let go, I thanked him a second time. Just as I passed through the doorway I said, "preciate it." I was too rushed to keep the "I a-".

I think it only needed one gesture of thanks, but it felt like too much silence. I mean, the guy obviously thought it out. It was on the brink of being too early to hold the door, and right in the 3-step gap where not holding the door would be excusable and holding it would be thoughtful. (Note: I was 2 steps before the final decision line, past which not holding the door would be rude.)

Anyway, whether or not it was required, I belive my response will encourage him to continue his thoughtfulness and ultimately, make the universe a better place.
Segue to the discussion point:If there are two doors in a row and you are following someone (this happens at a lot of restaurants), are you supposed to thank both times? If only once, when? Is too much thanking even meaningful at all, and if one is going to use multiple thanks, should they be different?

What if A holds door 1 for B. B passes A and holds door 2 for A. B obviously thanks A at door 1. Does A thank B at 2? Do they shake hands and show each other family pictures?

*half smile: The half smile is often performed in conjunction with a head nod. It signifies, I recognize your existance, and I may or may not care. In my opinion, recognizing is nicer than not. If done after someone holds the door for you, it can safely be interpreted as "thank you." It's not a real smile, and I believe it takes less than half the energy of a real smile. If a male gives another male, who is familiar but not on a conversational basis, a real smile he is either very gay or very happy. This is allowed, but I would feel awkward doing or receiving this.

If a male does the above while holding the door for another male, then replies to the second male's "thanks" with a emphatic "shhhuuurre!", he is either definitely very gay, definitely very strange, or definitely a cartoon character.

Urine Sampling

Here is another gross post, but it seems to be what we enjoy discussing, so here goes.

I'm assuming that it's not only my urine that is radioactive. Maybe that's an exaggeration. On an average day, if I've drunk enough water and I'm peeing in the toilet, my urine is relatively odorless.

Well not to gross anyone out, but I have peed in a toilet that someone else already peed in and didn't flush! (I mean, I flushed, but the first person didn't.) I think the only acceptable double toilet-usage is when a male pees on existing pee-water. The other combinations are gross. Ladies are always at risk for splashage, as are men deucing. Actually, to be safe, I'll usually aim for the porcelain right above the water if I feel that will reduce the chance of splashing.

ANYway, the real gist of this post is that when I pee into existing pee-water, it sometimes smells awful. Putrid even. It must be because the mixing of solutions and chemicals...etc. For example, when I lived with the parents, if I peed after my dad, I'd have to flush before I even got done, because I think it stank just about every time. This is obviously also observable in public or company restrooms. Sometimes the smell is obviously due to the guy with a leaky dong who peed all over the floor, but often I'm convinced it's just because of the lack of flushing, followed by pee-mixing.

So I wonder, is the reason that the first guys pee was grosser than mine? Probably not, because if it stank right when I got in there, I would have flushed it. It's the mixing that's harmful.

Well unless I'm extraordinary and mine is the only urine that reacts badly with others, then I'm sure you have already experienced all of this. What really blew my mind is that recently I was the only one home. I double-peed on my own pee, and it stunk! And this was only within a few hours. WOW!