Every once in a while, I see an article about how sitting is apparently terrible for our health, which makes me think about why and how it came about that we sit.
Humans sleep lying down, so you can see how we would stumble upon the notion of sitting as a transition point. Early fires would most likely be built on the ground, so you'd have to sit to tend to or use or enjoy the fire.
When you visualize people sitting around a fire, they're often sitting on rocks or logs. And you can see why a person would rather sit on a rock or log than on the possibly-damp probably-dirty ground.
And before we had furniture of any sort (including tables), it was probably more convenient to sit on the ground to do things like make clothes or butcher animals than it would be to stand up.
But then someone thought of tables for whatever reason (maybe things were cleaner when not at ground level even if people hadn't invented cleaning yet? Maybe vermin and animals couldn't get at stuff as easily if it was up higher?) And then someone thought of the idea that it would be more comfortable to sit when working at the table than to stand, and figured out how to build a device to make that happen.
This has me wondering what the ratio of time spent sitting vs. standing was before we had furniture. People had to stand to hunt or to farm, although they probably sat for things like meal preparation and making tools. Which did they perceive as the default? Did they make chairs to use at tables so they could sit like they usually did? Or did they originally feel that table use was standing like they usually did and then make chairs for some other reason?
Or did they first make non-table chairs (whatever the early equivalent of couches or armchairs was) and then come up with the idea of using chairs at tables (or even the idea of tables) later?
Have there ever been any cultures where people didn't sit, at all, ever? Have there ever been any cultures where they sat but didn't use chairs? (I have the probably-stereotypical idea absorbed from the ether that they tended not to use chairs in Japan before Western influence.)
I also wonder if there have been any cultures with different postures that had their own furniture (i.e. not sitting, standing, lying down, kneeling, anything we have a verb for in English) but are now lost to history. Or maybe they're not lost to history, I'm just ignorant of them.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
Saturday, September 17, 2016
In which I fall for a practical joke perpetrated by a baby
I'm waiting to cross a street, and this guy pushing a baby in a stroller is waiting next to me. I can't tell how old the baby is - I'd say more than 8 months but less than 2 years.
Suddenly, the baby points skyward and looks up, as though he sees something interesting. For some reason the father doesn't respond, but I look up to see what the baby's looking at. However, I don't see anything. No airplanes, no balloons, no clouds, no birds sitting on a wire, nothing.
So I look back at the baby and say "What do you see?"
And he looks me in the eye and bursts out laughing.
He totally tricked me, and I totally fell for it!
Suddenly, the baby points skyward and looks up, as though he sees something interesting. For some reason the father doesn't respond, but I look up to see what the baby's looking at. However, I don't see anything. No airplanes, no balloons, no clouds, no birds sitting on a wire, nothing.
So I look back at the baby and say "What do you see?"
And he looks me in the eye and bursts out laughing.
He totally tricked me, and I totally fell for it!
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
The first cleaning
Someone, at some point in human history, was the first person to clean. Someone was the first person to discover that water washes dirt off (probably when a dirty person went for a swim or fell into some water, or got water on themselves in the process of drinking water), and then someone was the first person to do that intentionally.
Which means someone was also the first person to come up with the idea that having no dirt on something was superior to having dirt on it. (It's also possible that someone came up with this idea before they figured out that water washed dirt off, so they were just thinking "Man, this situation would be way better if there was no dirt on this thing!" but couldn't do anything about it) Possibly the situation that led to this thought was something drastic, like their food fell into a pile of woolly mammoth poo, but it's also possible that, in a world where it had never before occurred to anyone that food would be better with no poo on it, no one would perceive that as a drastic situation.
Before it occurred to anyone to bathe, everyone must have smelled. Which means that they were probably immune to the fact that everyone smelled. So imagine the first person to bathe thoroughly enough to wash off their smell. Could they then smell everyone else? Did they think "OMG, everyone smells!" or did they think "Man, I'm never using water to get the dirt of me again, because doing that makes everyone smell"? Or did the dirty people think the clean person smelled?
And let's talk about soap! Soap is made of fat and lye. Lye is made by leaching ashes. Who on earth figured that out?? And imagine trying to explain to other people that really, this will eventually make stuff cleaner! Did they have other soap-like things before that are now lost to history because they were less effective?
When people lived outdoors or in caves, their floor was, obviously, dirt (or whatever the surrounding environment was made of - the floors of igloos might have been made of snow, for example). And then in the first human-constructed shelters, the floor would have been made of dirt as well. So someone was the first person to think of building a floor out of wood or whatever, and then someone else was probably the first person to think of cleaning the dirt off that floor!
Also, someone was the first person to think of dusting. Once indoors had been invented and material possessions that are kept indoors over long periods of time had been invented (which is a whole other thing, isn't it? The first clutter!), stuff started getting dusty. (Why doesn't stuff that's outdoors get dusty?) Someone was the first person to realize this was a problem, and to think of wiping stuff down to remove the dust.
Which means someone was also the first person to come up with the idea that having no dirt on something was superior to having dirt on it. (It's also possible that someone came up with this idea before they figured out that water washed dirt off, so they were just thinking "Man, this situation would be way better if there was no dirt on this thing!" but couldn't do anything about it) Possibly the situation that led to this thought was something drastic, like their food fell into a pile of woolly mammoth poo, but it's also possible that, in a world where it had never before occurred to anyone that food would be better with no poo on it, no one would perceive that as a drastic situation.
Before it occurred to anyone to bathe, everyone must have smelled. Which means that they were probably immune to the fact that everyone smelled. So imagine the first person to bathe thoroughly enough to wash off their smell. Could they then smell everyone else? Did they think "OMG, everyone smells!" or did they think "Man, I'm never using water to get the dirt of me again, because doing that makes everyone smell"? Or did the dirty people think the clean person smelled?
And let's talk about soap! Soap is made of fat and lye. Lye is made by leaching ashes. Who on earth figured that out?? And imagine trying to explain to other people that really, this will eventually make stuff cleaner! Did they have other soap-like things before that are now lost to history because they were less effective?
When people lived outdoors or in caves, their floor was, obviously, dirt (or whatever the surrounding environment was made of - the floors of igloos might have been made of snow, for example). And then in the first human-constructed shelters, the floor would have been made of dirt as well. So someone was the first person to think of building a floor out of wood or whatever, and then someone else was probably the first person to think of cleaning the dirt off that floor!
Also, someone was the first person to think of dusting. Once indoors had been invented and material possessions that are kept indoors over long periods of time had been invented (which is a whole other thing, isn't it? The first clutter!), stuff started getting dusty. (Why doesn't stuff that's outdoors get dusty?) Someone was the first person to realize this was a problem, and to think of wiping stuff down to remove the dust.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition XII
17. If you do something assholic out of ignorance, you have to read a book or article or watch a movie or otherwise consume a piece of media chosen by the victim of your assholicness.
The victim doesn't have to assign you your reading right away. They retain the option of assigning you reading at any point in the future, or not at all. (The purpose here is to avoid imposing upon the victim the additional burden of figuring out how to educate you, while leaving the door open for if they ever stumble upon the exact thing that would address your ignorance.)
Possible variation: if the total time the victim is affected by your ignorant assholicness exceeds the amount of time it takes you to consume the media, they are permitted to assign you multiple pieces of media to consume, with a total consumption time equal to the amount of time they were affected by your ignorant assholicness.
Another possible variation: the victim can appoint a proxy to assign you your reading.
The reading can, of course, include anything the victim has written. I'm also open to it including a face-to-face conversation, but the interpersonal dynamics of a face-to-face "This is why what you are doing is wrong" conversation can be difficult and put the person whose behaviour needs to change on the defensive.
I know that when I, personally, do something assholic out of ignorance, I want to learn how to do better. And I know that it is a burden to ask people who are already suffering from my ignorance to do the additional work of educating me. If they could just give me something to read, whenever they happen to stumble upon something that would do the job, that would relieve the burden from both of us.
And, as an added bonus, people who are being intentionally assholic but claiming innocent ignorance would come away with homework.
The victim doesn't have to assign you your reading right away. They retain the option of assigning you reading at any point in the future, or not at all. (The purpose here is to avoid imposing upon the victim the additional burden of figuring out how to educate you, while leaving the door open for if they ever stumble upon the exact thing that would address your ignorance.)
Possible variation: if the total time the victim is affected by your ignorant assholicness exceeds the amount of time it takes you to consume the media, they are permitted to assign you multiple pieces of media to consume, with a total consumption time equal to the amount of time they were affected by your ignorant assholicness.
Another possible variation: the victim can appoint a proxy to assign you your reading.
The reading can, of course, include anything the victim has written. I'm also open to it including a face-to-face conversation, but the interpersonal dynamics of a face-to-face "This is why what you are doing is wrong" conversation can be difficult and put the person whose behaviour needs to change on the defensive.
I know that when I, personally, do something assholic out of ignorance, I want to learn how to do better. And I know that it is a burden to ask people who are already suffering from my ignorance to do the additional work of educating me. If they could just give me something to read, whenever they happen to stumble upon something that would do the job, that would relieve the burden from both of us.
And, as an added bonus, people who are being intentionally assholic but claiming innocent ignorance would come away with homework.
Thursday, September 08, 2016
Things They Should Invent: put the sidewalk on the shady side of the street
Some streets (usually small side streets) have a sidewalk on only one side of the street.
There should be a rule that, in cases where they only have one sidewalk for whatever reason, the sidewalk has to be on the side of the street that's shadiest on summer afternoons.
Shade on hot days contributes more to pedestrian comfort than sun on cold days, and summer afternoons are the time of day and time of year that's the hottest. This can also be a quality of life factor for the most vulnerable people, like the very old, the very young, and those with health problems.
Pedestrians shouldn't have to choose between being safe from cars and being safe from sunstroke. There needs to be some basis for deciding where to put the sidewalk in cases where they don't put one on each side of the street, so why not put it on the side where it will best contribute to quality of life?
There should be a rule that, in cases where they only have one sidewalk for whatever reason, the sidewalk has to be on the side of the street that's shadiest on summer afternoons.
Shade on hot days contributes more to pedestrian comfort than sun on cold days, and summer afternoons are the time of day and time of year that's the hottest. This can also be a quality of life factor for the most vulnerable people, like the very old, the very young, and those with health problems.
Pedestrians shouldn't have to choose between being safe from cars and being safe from sunstroke. There needs to be some basis for deciding where to put the sidewalk in cases where they don't put one on each side of the street, so why not put it on the side where it will best contribute to quality of life?
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Books read in August 2016
New:
1. Devoted in Death
2. Wonderment in Death
3. Brotherhood in Death
4. For Her Own Good: Two Centuries of the Experts' Advice to Women by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English
5. The Testament of Mary by Colm Tóibín
6. Citizen: Am American Lyric by Claudia Rankine
Reread:
1. Obsession in Death
2. Naked in Death
1. Devoted in Death
2. Wonderment in Death
3. Brotherhood in Death
4. For Her Own Good: Two Centuries of the Experts' Advice to Women by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English
5. The Testament of Mary by Colm Tóibín
6. Citizen: Am American Lyric by Claudia Rankine
Reread:
1. Obsession in Death
2. Naked in Death
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Things They Should Study: do political positions correlate with attitudes towards politically-incompatible celebrities?
Sometimes the celebrities I follow on Twitter get people telling them to shut up about politics and stick to entertainment.
This is something I find difficult to understand.
I do see why someone might not want incompatible political opinions turning up in their Twitter feed. But what I don't understand is why you'd want to keep following someone once you know that they hold these incompatible opinions.
When someone has incompatible politics (by which I don't mean simply that I don't agree with them, but rather that I see their position as outright harmful and/or cruel) I'm not able to respect them enough to be a fan of them. I cease to be interested in their day-to-day life and thoughts, and most likely in their work as well. Even if for some reason I do maintain interest in their work (for example, perhaps if one member of an ensemble cast for a major fandom has incompatible politics) I no longer have any desire to hear from them as an individual, just to see the finished work.
It would be interesting to study this on a broader level. Are there any patterns of the political opinions or affiliation of people who want to continue following politically-incompatible celebrities but not hear about their politics, as compared with people who lose interest in politically-incompatible celebrities, as compared with people who can cheerfully continue following a celebrity without regard for their incompatible politics.
They could also study whether there are patterns in real-life relationships as opposed to celebrity-fan relationships, but I find the celebrity-fan relationship particularly interesting because it's unidirectional. If a parent holds political opinions you consider harmful, there's an element of "How can you bring a child into the world and then work politically to make the world a worse place?" But the celebrity has no loyalty or attachment to the individual fan and the fan adores the celebrity, so it's an interesting and unique dynamic.
This is something I find difficult to understand.
I do see why someone might not want incompatible political opinions turning up in their Twitter feed. But what I don't understand is why you'd want to keep following someone once you know that they hold these incompatible opinions.
When someone has incompatible politics (by which I don't mean simply that I don't agree with them, but rather that I see their position as outright harmful and/or cruel) I'm not able to respect them enough to be a fan of them. I cease to be interested in their day-to-day life and thoughts, and most likely in their work as well. Even if for some reason I do maintain interest in their work (for example, perhaps if one member of an ensemble cast for a major fandom has incompatible politics) I no longer have any desire to hear from them as an individual, just to see the finished work.
It would be interesting to study this on a broader level. Are there any patterns of the political opinions or affiliation of people who want to continue following politically-incompatible celebrities but not hear about their politics, as compared with people who lose interest in politically-incompatible celebrities, as compared with people who can cheerfully continue following a celebrity without regard for their incompatible politics.
They could also study whether there are patterns in real-life relationships as opposed to celebrity-fan relationships, but I find the celebrity-fan relationship particularly interesting because it's unidirectional. If a parent holds political opinions you consider harmful, there's an element of "How can you bring a child into the world and then work politically to make the world a worse place?" But the celebrity has no loyalty or attachment to the individual fan and the fan adores the celebrity, so it's an interesting and unique dynamic.
Saturday, August 27, 2016
Why can you mail packages in street mailboxes?
 |
| Mailing a package in a Canada Post mailbox |
Mailboxes have been like this for as long as I can remember. Even when I was a child in the 1980s, ever mailbox I saw (some of which, I'm sure, long predated the 1980s) had the large opening for packages.
Which raises the question: why would anyone put a package in a street mailbox? Correct postage for a package varies depending on size and weight, and, even if you could reliably calculate the postage at home, people rarely have a wide selection of different denominations of stamps that would enable them to affix correct postage. Under normal circumstances, you'd have to go to a post office. So why would a person ever put a package in the mailbox?
Of course, in the 21st century, the answer is ecommerce. When returning a product from a website with free returns (and perhaps under other circumstances of which I'm unaware), sometimes you get a shipping label that you can stick on a package and pop it right into a mailbox without having to go to the post office.
But mailboxes were designed to accommodate packages long before ecommerce was a thing! Why? Under what circumstances did people mail packages in street mailboxes back in the day?
Friday, August 26, 2016
Late-breaking story on the CBC
I know this has already been thoroughly commented on in many, many places, but I feel the need to post it here for the record:
The CBC's coverage of the Tragically Hip's final concert was an outstanding example of our public broadcaster meeting the needs of Canadians.
We had a need that could be met with a television broadcast. But, at the same time, this need was not super compatible with the conventions of television broadcasting. The format required it to be commercial-free, despite the fact that it was in prime time and had a huge number of viewers. And it happened to be during the Olympics, for which the CBC held broadcasting rights. It was of unpredictable duration. The content would likely contain some swear words. Canadians abroad needed to be able to see it just as much as Canadians at home.
And the CBC overcame all these obstacles to make it happen, prioritizing the needs of Canadians rather than bureaucratic or penny-pinching requirements or the need to put commercials in front of eyeballs. They could just as easily (actually, far more easily) have shrugged their shoulders and said "Sorry, we're committed to the Olympics", or "Well, we have to run commercials to earn our keep," or "You can't say 'fuck' on television!" or "Broadcast only available in Canada" and we wouldn't even have noticed. But instead they stepped up, figured out a way to make it work, and served a huge number of Canadians - more than twice the number of Canadians who voted for the winning party in any election in my lifetime!
Many people noticed and appreciated this, and I hope that creates and sustains the political will to give the CBC the resources it needs to keep meeting our needs in the future, even when they don't correspond tidily with the conventions of broadcasting.
The CBC's coverage of the Tragically Hip's final concert was an outstanding example of our public broadcaster meeting the needs of Canadians.
We had a need that could be met with a television broadcast. But, at the same time, this need was not super compatible with the conventions of television broadcasting. The format required it to be commercial-free, despite the fact that it was in prime time and had a huge number of viewers. And it happened to be during the Olympics, for which the CBC held broadcasting rights. It was of unpredictable duration. The content would likely contain some swear words. Canadians abroad needed to be able to see it just as much as Canadians at home.
And the CBC overcame all these obstacles to make it happen, prioritizing the needs of Canadians rather than bureaucratic or penny-pinching requirements or the need to put commercials in front of eyeballs. They could just as easily (actually, far more easily) have shrugged their shoulders and said "Sorry, we're committed to the Olympics", or "Well, we have to run commercials to earn our keep," or "You can't say 'fuck' on television!" or "Broadcast only available in Canada" and we wouldn't even have noticed. But instead they stepped up, figured out a way to make it work, and served a huge number of Canadians - more than twice the number of Canadians who voted for the winning party in any election in my lifetime!
Many people noticed and appreciated this, and I hope that creates and sustains the political will to give the CBC the resources it needs to keep meeting our needs in the future, even when they don't correspond tidily with the conventions of broadcasting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)