Stress yourself out worrying how to pay for expensive crap that you don't need and how you'll work to pay it. Or go sit in the garden and listen to the birds while doing without. That's what this post is about. I'm the latter.
Alrighty, you are inarguably an awesome person and so I feel no problem waxing abstract with (or at, if you do not reply) you. Here's my question for you: Is homosapien speciating?
You see, I was watching a survival show and the host said that expending little energy was the key to survival. This is true for obvious reasons, and yet if this were a general rule of the universe then there would be only the most efficient plants as lifeforms - things like mammals could not have evolved unless there is a counter argument to this. This thinking worries me at times because of the apparent contradiction of the human being in regards to this. My reasoning or thoughts go somewhat like this.
Every person I've met that I would call "intellectual" (not schooled, mind you, just intellectual) has an affinity for exactly your mode of activity: the introvert modus operandi. This makes sense because how else could one study, read, learn, imagine or think if every moment of their life is occupied with physical and social activity? Obviously one can't.
However, most of the socially 'successful' do occupy their lives with physical and social activity (business leaders, politicians, celebrities). Yet the MOST successful people seem to be exceptions - Bill Gates is well known to have a love for introverted activities (going to cabin for weeks and months to just read).
This post is becoming a bit of an outlet for me and a brainstorm so bear with me.
So then, let us assume that there are 2 types of success: 1) Social or societal success, and 2) Individual success.
The result of type 1 success I think is money and fame. The result of type 2 success is confidence and well, well-being I guess.
But honestly I don't think type 1 or 2 in general is more or less energy consuming or conserving than the other...I guess I haven't thought about this as much as I thought I had.
I'll just end this now and submit it for the record, but before I do I must mention Asimov's view of the future speciation of humanity. Asimov framed a future of Earthlings and Spacers. Those Earthlings crammed together living in gargantuan enclosed cities on an overcrowded planet with diminishing resources. The Spacers living on vast, unoccupied planets, living for centuries in relative peace and quiet.
The spacers sound ideal, but Asimov is keen to point out the negatives - the spacers do not drink or intake any drugs, they rarely come into contact with one another and because they live so long they have little motivation to progress. Asimov framed the two polarities of the human future as the two types of stability, dynamic Earth and static spacers and in doing so he showed that both were paths to ultimate extinction. The answer in Asimov's mind was some middle-ground, where humans left their coddled cities to explore and colonize the galaxy, but never fully settled on any one of them...at least for about 20k years which is when the foundation books kick in to tackle another form of social stagnation and decay.
Of course, Asimov had robots to help - and one beloved, fair-skinned android in particular. His humans remained a single species (solarians and mutants like the mule aside). I wonder, though, if that is realistic? I think we must speciate. I wonder if it is trying to happen as we speak. Thanks for reading!