"To Sleep, Perchance To Dream"

Next to the most often quoted of all of William Shakespeare's words, "To be or not to be", is "To sleep, perchance to dream", both from Hamlet's famous soliloquy, Act 3 Scene 1.

I am no Shakespearean scholar nor do I  desire to be one but there is something about the above quotation that makes me wonder.  Did old William just touch on the two subject matters that frequently occupied the minds of the people during his time - sleep and death? But is it not also even more remarkably so today? More on this in a bit.

Did you know that people can fast for a week and would be fine afterwards but sleep deprivation even for just 2-3 days is considered torture in international law. Gandhi fasted in at least three separate episodes of his life from 1932 to 1943 and the longest on record was 18 days which showed little or no  ill effects on his physical and mental health. On the other hand,

.."staying awake for 24 hours causes similar cognitive effects as a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10%, which is higher than the legal limit for driving."        according to the CDC

 

“Sleep deprivation is a high interest loan with steep payments in the form of health consequences.”      -------- Dr. Abhinav Singh, Sleep Physician

The occasional all-nighter to finish a project, a report, or complete doing something on a deadline may have no ill effects if done only once in a while but "borrowing" hours from each daily pattern of sleep could result in chronic sleep deprivation with serious health consequences.

Then there is a world-wide demand for sleep aid and medications for sleep related issues  that in 2025 reached $84 billion and is expected to rise to $163 billion in 2034, barely half a generation from now.

Apparently, advanced mental capacity notwithstanding, only humans suffer from sleep disorder or, is it because of it that makes us vulnerable? Dolphins and whales deal with it by having half their brains go to sleep while the other half is wide awake in alternating fashion while resting. Mammals that they are, the need to breathe air is dealt with through this awesome biological adaptation in a watery environment. I guess whales and dolphins do not suffer from insomnia.

Let's get back to old William S.

There are many interpretations of Hamlet's soliloquy but even today do we not see the message to the ambitious executive, the startup business entrepreneur, or the rich worrying about losing their accumulated wealth?

    

                     "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

                      The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,"..

Or, to the worrier, the heartbroken, or anyone filled with hopelessness in the face of misfortune:

"Or to take arms against a sea of troubles

And by opposing end them.."

 

".. The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks

That flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep".

Was this grappling with existential questions about life and death? Or, was it contemplating the fear of the unknown after death?  And there too are feelings of despair that some of us may suffer.  But, was it not about sleep too?

If we go by the recommended eight hours of sleep per day, it means spending a third of our lives unaware of what is going on around us. Speaking of being unaware, that is what  general anesthesia does to us during surgery or routine colonoscopy (for those of us of a certain age who have undergone this procedure). But did you know that under anesthesia we do not dream? So, not only are we not aware of what is going on under anesthesia, we do not feel pain, we do not remember anything and we do not dream.  Not only are our reflexes and involuntary movements suppressed while under anesthesia, mechanical ventilation is needed to help us breathe.  The anesthesiologist, whose presence during these procedures is a must, ensures that heart and blood pressure and other vital signs are monitored and that the patient is able to breathe. In other words we are totally in a state of unconsciousness; but are our brains deactivated during all that time? 

But what does that mean?  Is our subconscious also offline?  Is that about as close as we can experience - need we say it - death? To sleep but perchance to not dream! 

But death we need not talk about; instead, let's examine sleep.

 

In normal sleep we dream. However, why are our dreams not quite normal? I mean our dreams are often weird, silly at times, but dream we do anyhow.

"No one has a single, definitive answer for why humans dream, but neuroscience has moved well beyond guessing. The brain is intensely active during sleep, cycling through stages that each produce different kinds of mental experiences. The leading explanations point to several overlapping functions: consolidating memories, processing emotions, rehearsing threats, and fostering creative thinking. Rather than competing, these theories likely each capture a piece of what dreaming does for us".

So the brain does really want to remain active while much of our physical body is at rest?  But why the silly scenarios, such as, being on a business trip in some unknown city and not able to find your way back to the hotel; or, getting ready for a business presentation and you have no clue about what to present; or, finding yourself with business colleagues ready to board the plane and you are the only one without a boarding pass; or, how about witnessing an airplane crash and when you get to where it fell, you only find a burning chicken, etc. Except for one, those are some of my dreams, long after I've  retired, mind you.

What about nightmares? Is the brain merely trying to scare us?  Or, left alone without our conscious supervision, is the brain just being naughty or capricious while we are sleeping, to get something out of our system and relieve us of daytime stress?

Or, does the brain do it to free us of wild ideas about talking spiders where some have the ability to detect gravity waves, lions and hyenas debating theology, and marauding witches, or conversations between an angel and the devil, etc.  Wait, I wrote those, and if the reader cares(d) to read about them from some of my earlier blogs, you'll know what I mean. So, it's not that. I do hope it's not that.  We'll leave that to the neuroscientists and psychiatrists.

According to one U.N. estimate, 16% of the world's population suffer from insomnia, more among women than men, while those 65 years old or older suffer the least. Shall we guess that women are typically the worrier and those past 65 don't worry too much because they've "been there, done that"?

Granted insomnia is not a permanent malady for most, we are still talking about a billion people having problems with sleep at one time or another.  No wonder sleeping medications and other sleep aids are a booming business.

Aside from sleep aids and medications, we get a host of advice, "proven" techniques and tricks to getting a good night sleep from friends, from doctors, from  media influencers, etc. 

The reader will get one from me as well. Part of a questionnaire our primary care doctor used to ask me during my annual physical is about how well I sleep at night. I told him what my wife usually says about my sleep pattern - that I fall asleep at the flip of the light switch. At each physical since, he'd remember about it and he kept telling me that it is a blessing to be able to do that. He did ask me once how I do it. I told him that I don't think much about how I do it other than actually using a mental switch the moment I close my eyes.  

Of course, falling asleep at the flip of a switch is an exaggeration but it is pretty close. Then I told him that there  is one interesting question; "What do I do when on rare occasions when sleep eludes me after several minutes when the switch has been flipped and I'm still awake.

I would imagine myself lying along a narrow and gently flowing stream, water slowly cascading over rocks and stones and there's a small fire nearby.  The doctor asked if I'm inside a sleeping bag or on an air mattress. That is never part of the scenery, besides, I've had no experience in real life doing it, not once ever, so the discomfort of the stony ground or wet grass are not in the realm of my imagination. I do imagine  being under a blanket but not worrying about mosquitoes and other night flying insects, snakes slithering by or some nocturnal rodents passing through.  No mosquito nets either. It's the stream, the fire and the blanket that do the trick, a mere stage scene with no basis in reality, yet it works. 

But there is the question of falling back to sleep after waking up for one reason or another. A trip (or two) to the bathroom is a common reason - guys of a certain age know what I mean.  Well, I read somewhere a while back, or was it a YouTube presentation, that there is a trick that works all the time when falling back to sleep is an issue.

Here's how it works.

1. Think of a word, with perhaps 4-6 letters.

2. Starting with the first letter, think of as many words as you can that start with that letter, then do the same with the next letter, with the aim of doing all the letters.

Example, you thought of the word - "cover" - starting with 'c', you think of:

cup, cobra, capsule, Cuba, etc., then followed by 'o': ocean, oven, optical, ox, overnight, etc. and on to the remaining letters v, e, r.

The more unrelated the words are to each other, the more effective it is because, we are told, the brain is set up that way during sleep. It goes through all kinds of unrelated scenarios - a disorganized calisthenics of thoughts (my description) - and that's what makes our dreams weird and unreal; a warm up for the brain to take over the landscape of a dreamful sleep.

But it works. You are likely not able to complete the entire exercise before falling back to sleep.  

All that being said, I caution the reader that I am not a sleep psychologist (if there is such a thing as sleep psychology) and I am just relating what I read or saw.  Worth a try though.  It just might surprise you.  

Failing that, get up, get out of the bedroom and read the entire Hamlet soliloquy, and see if it will not put you to sleep. Or, at least you'll see proof that language evolved and why some words succumbed to inevitable extinction. 

To be, or not to be, that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles

And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,

No more; and by a sleep to say we end

The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks

That flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;

To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub:

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,

When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

Must give us pause—there's the respect

That makes calamity of so long life.

For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,

Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,

The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay,

The insolence of office, and the spurns

That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,

When he himself might his quietus make

With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,

To grunt and sweat under a weary life,

But that the dread of something after death,

The undiscovere'd country, from whose bourn

No traveller returns, puzzles the will,

And makes us rather bear those ills we have

Than fly to others that we know not of?

Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all,

And thus the native hue of resolution

Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,

And enterprises of great pith and moment

With this regard their currents turn awry

And lose the name of action.

Well, it's time to say, "Tonight I bid you to sleep, let your brain clean up the clutter and toss them out, and keep only those worth remembering the next morning.

 

Are We Still Talking About Socialism?

Yes, we are still talking about it. Seriously sometimes or perhaps within the bounds of good humor we toss a good dollop of truth in our conversations with snippets of funny stories.

1. Just a month before Nicolas Maduro was given free passage to his current residence in New York, a reporter asked him about the status of the worldwide state of Capitalism.

Maduro responded: "You know, my dear friend and predecessor, Hugo Chavez, told me what he learned from his friend Fidel Castro who learned it from Nikita Khrushchev who in the sixties said that Capitalism was standing on the very precipice of absolute disaster"!

Another reporter then asked about the status of  Socialism in the world.

Maduro responded: "What I learned, as you should know, is that Socialism is always one step ahead of capitalism!"

If that is not the most succinct explanation of the fate of socialism we will be hard pressed to find another one.

2. And, of course, Ronald Reagan had another one of the many stories he had collected on the subject.  Here's another one.

Mikael Gorbachev was told by one of his aides that a woman outside his office refused to leave until she had an audience with the president. "Send her in", Gorbachev said. 

When the woman came in, Gorbachev said, "What's on your mind"?

"Please tell me, who invented communism - a scientist or politician"?

"A politician invented communism", Gorbachev replied.

"Well, that figures, doesn't it"?

"Oh, how so?"

"Well, a scientist would have experimented on mice first."

(I merely embellished stories 1 & 2 that had been around for a while.  I made up story no. 3 below).

3. Through another cosmic oddity, a debate was arranged somewhere. Ayn Rand was picked as the moderator. At one particular moment, already on stage were Fidel Castro, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot waiting in front of their individual lecterns. Then Ronald Reagan appeared from behind the curtain.

Reagan:  I must apologize for being late.  It took me a while to come down the stairway.  I didn't realize how far above I was.

Ayn Rand: Thank you Ronnie, may I call you Ronnie?  Actually where we are right now is about halfway between two places.  These gentlemen had to climb up to get here.  Oh, and don't worry, we have an elevator for you, Ronnie, on the way back up.

Castro: Typical of a capitalist who is used to a life of luxury on the backs of the proletariat. Do you know how rich the capitalists have become building elevators?

Reagan:  Has the debate started already?

Ayn Rand: No, no, not yet.  Although Mr. Castro had already used up his opening remarks.

Mao:  Wait, wait, for a minute.  Let's start this properly. Comrade Stalin, do you care to comment?

Ayn Rand:  Gentlemen, gentlemen, please. Ronnie, who is by himself and there are four of you, will make the first opening remarks.

Reagan: I was expecting my friend Mikhail Gorbachev to come, where is he?

Stalin: I vetoed his presence here.  He was way too soft to be a true communist.

Reagan: Okay.  Josef Stalin. Wow! Imagine if I had to say, "Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili", your real name before you became Stalin.  Mao, we may yet know who actually tailored your own personal Mao jacket. I remember it well when its popularity surged in the late sixties, early seventies. I know the Mao attire started in the forties - mostly from coarse cotton. But by the time of the Cultural Revolution that started in 1966, fashion houses in the west started promoting them.  We knew that coarse cotton was still the go-to material for the common Chinese at that time but yours were from fine silk.  Perhaps after tonight you will tell me who your designer was? Pol Pot,  a name that used to be Saloth Sar, to be honest, why are you here, if not perhaps because of your alliterative name?

Pol Pot: Who are you calling illiterate?

Ayn Rand: Calm down Pol, may I call you Pol. Saloth is hard on my accent. Alliterative simply means that your name  involves a repetition of the same consonant sound at the beginning of closely connected words, like Big Bang or Criss-Cross, and Saloth Sar falls in that category as well, which has nothing to do with your ability to read or write. Ronnie was not being condescending.

Reagan: My apologies Pol, if you misunderstood. Although I must say that you almost drove all of Cambodia to illiteracy when you pushed every intellectual in your country to hide their literacy by pretending to be illiterate to avoid the ire of the proletariat, as our friend Fidel here alluded to.

Fidel: I need to say something. In Cuba, even today, our resourcefulness and intelligence are responsible for why the Chevrolet Bel Aire still runs on the open road in Cuba while your wasteful people only see them in museums.

Stalin: What is a Chevrolet Bel Air?

Ayn Rand:  It's an American made car way after you were gone, Josef. You are more familiar with the Pobeda model made by the now defunct Russian automaker, the Gorky Automobile Plant that was established in 1932. I used to live in the Soviet Union, as you know, so the Pobeda compared to the Chevrolet Bel Air is like comparing a toaster to a Magic Chef oven.  Anyhow, let's move on, please.  Ronnie?

Reagan: I came prepared because I knew Fidel will bring up the Chevrolet story again. So, for  Joseph Stalin's benefit, here is a photo of a 1954 Bel Air with your favorite color - red.  I do not have a photo of a Magic Chef oven but it does cook like magic compared to a toaster.

Fidel: Like I said, we still have them running in Havana today.

Reagan: Sure, and I must admire the resourcefulness of the people of Cuba.  I am just not a fan of how the government works for them. 

Mao: How should the government work, may I ask?  China today is an economic power and has military power to reckon with and run by the CCP - Chinese Communist Party.

Reagan: But do you know how modern China attained economic power?  By running its economy as a capitalist system and executing the powers of government as a Communist regime.  Fidel, if you must know, the number of Chinese billionaires is second only to those in the USA.  So, I ask you, just ninety miles across the Florida Strait is a country where Cubans live a life a thousand times better than Cubans in Cuba. Don't you want your people to live free and enjoy the blessing of capitalism?  Your neighbors in the Caribbean are enjoying a brisk tourism industry.  Your people could be driving a 21st century vehicle powered by direct fuel injection engines instead of the ones with carburetors as your Chevy Bel Air, that requires to be cleaned every so often. And have you heard of disk brakes and air conditioned cars? Josef, if you must know, cars now have navigation systems that led road maps into mass extinction.

Stalin: How do you air condition cars? And how do they deal with the Russian winter.

Reagan:  Josef, I have so much to show you after this. We'll talk.

Pol Pot: Wait, wait. Indeed, as Reagan asked, why am I here?

Ayn Rand: Pol, I too will show you how Cambodia had progressed since you were gone.  It is now one of the emerging tourist destinations in Asia. I will have you and Fidel talk to tour companies who promise to bring more people to visit your countries. 

Reagan:  Fidel, I will have you know that Cuba will become not just as a tourist destination but a manufacturing hub that will only succeed because of its proximity to the most successful capitalist nation in the world.

Ayn Rand:  You know what, why don't we go to the audio-visual room where we will show, side by side, the difference between how capitalist-run countries stack up against socialist/communist run governments and we'll let the debate continue there. I think it is best to show actual images of people living in capitalist countries and those in communist nations.  By the way, Josef, if you must know, your comrade Nikita Khrushchev was wrong when he predicted during his time:

1. Khrushchev emphasized the superiority of communism over capitalism.

2. He claimed that the inevitable triumph of communism would lead to the downfall of democratic nations.

3. The phrase "we will bury you" was meant to convey confidence in the communist ideology.  He said that at the Communist Party Congress in 1956. Just about that time the Chevy Bel Air produced an optional V-8 engine over what was then an inline six-cylinder engine. I thought I'd mention that. 

I ask you, how many nations today still identify as adhering to the communist ideology?  Think about that as we head to the other room.  Appetizers and drinks will be served and dinner will follow after the debate.

Reagan:  I have more photos to show you and Fidel.  And Fidel, those cruise ships that I hope will soon be docking at your harbors that will bring tourists willing to spend money there, are built by capitalist entrepreneurs that employ thousands upon thousands of people.  The proletariat you refer to are going to be rich proletariats if you allow American and European manufacturers to do business in Cuba. Oh, and do you know that the current American Secretary of State is of Cuban descent?  Let's talk some more, okay?

 

There Must Be a Pony in Here Somewhere

President Ronald Reagan had to have been the most eternal optimist of all the U.S. Presidents who ever served. If he were just an ordinary person he had to have been a good example of someone who always looked at a half filled glass as half full, as opposed to the other  equally accurate description - that the glass is half empty.  Technically, either description would be accurately correct. The difference is ruled by the rule of perspective.

President Reagan told and re-told this story about the difference between optimism and pessimism. Those around his circle said this was his favorite joke that he often re-told  over and over a few times. 

"The joke concerns twin boys of five or six. Worried that the boys had developed extreme personalities — one was a total pessimist, the other a total optimist — their parents took them to a psychiatrist."

The psychiatrist first took the pessimist child to a room piled to the ceiling with brand-new toys. Moments later, the psychiatrist checked in on him. Instead of enjoying the toys the little boy burst into tears. Asked why he didn't seem to enjoy playing with the toys he replied “Yes, but if I did I’d only break them.”

Next the psychiatrist treated the optimist. To dampen the boy's spirits the psychiatrist took him to a room piled to the ceiling with horse manure. But instead of wrinkling his nose in disgust, the optimist emitted just the yelp of delight the psychiatrist had been hoping to hear from his brother, the pessimist. Then he clambered to the top of the pile, dropped to his knees, and began gleefully digging out scoop after scoop with his bare hands. ”What do you think you’re doing?” the psychiatrist asked, just as baffled by the optimist as he had been by the pessimist. “With all this manure,” the little boy replied, beaming, “there must be a pony in here somewhere!”

The rule of perspective is what gives most situations their definition depending on how one individual looks at it.  However, even in the most dire conditions, the rule of perspective would still have profound influences,  affecting individuals to varying degrees.  Afterall, when things go bad, pessimism does not help, while optimism opens a door through which one may begin to alleviate the ill effects of a bad situation while setting the stage to make things better.

However, that is not to say that pessimism is completely and thoroughly bad because  to be so totally optimistic all the time as to ignore every conceivable possibility that things can go wrong  is also not such a really good thing. From my last musing I did mention about the universal duality as the governing rule that defines purpose.

I wrote too from an earlier topic, ("The Thorny Sides of Impatience", 04/23/2023), that perhaps Col. Custer's total optimism may have caused his and his troop's lives at Little Big Horn on June 26, 1876.  A dose of pessimism, if allowed to prevail, could have delayed Custer's push to the battlefield had he waited for reinforcements that were a mere day away. 

Field Marshal Montgomery ("La Vie En Rose 2", 02/28/2025) was way too optimistic when he pushed so hard to launch Operation Market Garden in Sept. 1944 in an attempt to capture key bridges in the Netherlands as a quick way into German territory.  Instead, it delayed the invasion of Germany when the operation failed at the cost of so many lives of the Allied forces; tragically more so when so many of those were from the 101st Airborne Division that heroically performed so well for the Allied forces in the preceding hours of the Normandy landing three months earlier.

In our personal lives not only is it a good idea to have a healthy mix of optimism and pessimism but that when it comes to relationships between people and particularly between husband and wife, opposing views may help in decision making.  But it must not lead to paralysis. A healthy mix could help when excessive optimism is tempered by a dose of pessimism  to arrive at a balanced decision.

For example, a lofty desire by one partner for a nice luxury vehicle can be prevailed upon when the reality of affordability is brought up by the other. Recognizing  what such an undertaking will do to the family budget may belong in the domain of the pessimist but it is a good balance against the unmetered desires of the insouciant optimist.  Perhaps marriage is not so much about "horse and carriage"' as in an old Frank Sinatra song, but that it is more about polar opposites meeting halfway across the room between the optimist and the pessimist - a prelude to a waltz into a happy solution.

But I say...

When the wind is blowing the optimist decides it is the best time to fly a kite; the pessimist worries about a storm that is certain to follow; the pragmatist is the one to open the windows to let in the breeze of fresh air into the house.

A Quick History of Purpose(s)

Before we get into the business of digging lightly or deeply into the question of whether everything we see and touch around us, or for that matter in the entire universe, has a purpose, I share this funny poster at the auto repair shop I go to for an oil change.  It is funny, of course, because the shop owner's wife who manages the office is the one who put it up there.  

 

Then I found the photo below from somewhere. 

These are sort of the minimalist expressions of "one tool, many purposes", philosophy for fixing as many broken stuff with one tool if possible or with what is available on hand.

On the other hand we may have this almost insane obsession with having "one tool, one purpose" philosophy of specialization taken to extremes.

Guilty as charged. My wife would make fun of me when I prepare and cook two kinds of dishes; then she observes me washing seventeen kitchen utensils and cookware, not including the dishes after we've consumed the meal. Do I need two fillet knives, five paring knives, three different cleavers, a vegetable knife separate from the chef's knife, two cheese knives,  etc.? Some of you looking at the above photo  will ask, "almost insane obsession"? Followed by, "That's unequivocally  nutty", as some of you will add. 

Like I said ..

Whew, now we got that out of the way.  So, does everything have a purpose? Even mosquitoes, viruses, moles, birthmarks and the appendix? And what about cancer cells?  And what's with the humongous seed in an avocado that far outweighs the rest of the fruit?"

The short answer is that everything has a purpose. Actually, when all is said and done, that is the only answer.  Unfortunately, the moment we start the conversation, it will invariably gravitate to the question: "What is the purpose of the existence of the devil, why is there evil in the world?"

Let's pause for a minute. Let's start from the beginning - that is, from the beginning of creation.  Wait, wait, you ask, "Why start from something or somewhere we have no means to travel back to? And why from all the way there?"

Well, we begin there because if we can establish that there was a purpose for   creation  then it follows that everything, from what cosmologists  often describe   as the primordial atom, should have and must have a purpose. 

"Why?" is an entirely different question. Why did the Creator create the universe? That is the one question that is philosophically and theologically difficult to answer, if one is not deeply immersed in theology. It is almost like asking also, "Did the Creator have a choice in creating the universe?"  We will not go there as well.  As Stephen Hawking said, "That would be like trying to read the mind of God".  We too will not venture there.

Biblically we can start with, Genesis chapter one, verse 3 "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.…

Now, cosmologically, the Big Bang theory says, "that the universe began as an infinitely small, hot, and dense point, which rapidly expanded in an instant.. usually depicted as an intense bright light.

The similarity between the two views is brightly clear with the suddenness of instantaneity as, "Let there be light" and the rapid expansion of everything in 10 to the minus 36 second (10 preceded by 36 zeros), from a single point-source that was infinitely hot and dense that kept on expanding for over 13.7 billion years now and still expanding as we speak.

Genesis 1:3 and the beginning of the universe per the Big Bang Theory are for all intents and purposes similar. There, I managed to sneak in the word "purposes".  So first, Biblically there was darkness and then there was light; from cosmology, there was nothing, then there was something. 

Carefully, we see that the "principle of duality in the universe suggests that opposing forces are interconnected and essential for balance. In cosmology, dualism often refers to the belief in two fundamental concepts that coexist, influencing the structure and behavior of the universe".

Universal Duality also restricts us to view everything around us as either big or small, fast or slow, heavy and light, thin and thick, positive and negative, north and south and on and on.

In the beginning just prior to the creation of atoms, later to combine into molecules, elementary particles started with negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons that made for the creation of atoms, to molecules and later complex compounds that gave us the basic makeup of matter, then on to heavier building blocks.

Lightning is one of nature's most powerful phenomena. Around the world 100 lightning strikes occur every second or 8.6 million strikes each day, as the negatively charged atmosphere and the positively charged ground produces the powerful spark, no different from touching two wires with the two opposing charges. These strikes are responsible for breaking up nitrogen molecules in the air and combining with hydrogen that results in a compound known as NH3. Rain will bring it down to the ground as ammonium hydroxide - ammonia, which is essentially a  natural fertilizer. The ancients believed that the gods used lightning to punish people. As rare an occurrence of lightning killing people or livestock, people still asked why?  Or, to conclude that such was the purpose for lightning.

Metaphorically, a lightning rod is a person or thing that attracts criticism or blame, or politically describing a scapegoat or the focus of public ire. As a result  we forget the real purpose of lightning.

Viruses and bacteria are two of many pathogens known to man.  But they also played a vital role in our development as a successful species. Either they triggered mutations to improve our physiology or that survivors of infection not only passed it on to their progenies and that those who lived on were ably adaptable against infections. Bacteria in our gut are responsible for breaking down nutrients in the food we eat.  Bacteria as in yeast gives rise (literally speaking and pun intended) to better and delicious bread.

Human skin pigments were adaptations based on the intensity of the sun's radiation.  Those located at or near the equator were the sun's intensity was at maximum, skin color became darker to protect the skin.  Humans that migrated northwards into the temperate and colder climate were the sun's intensity was at a minimum in strength and duration, the skin turned paler to absorb the right amount of Vitamin D from the sun's rays.  Adaptation to difference in sun's intensity dictated the difference in skin pigments. The adaptation was precisely controlled so that those located in between the temperate and equatorial zones developed just the right amount of absorption of Vitamin D by having brown skin pigment.  Dark/light duality rules were enforced.

There are countless more examples but suffice it to say that from the beginning of creation, Biblically or cosmologically (as described by science), purposes for and of everything came baked into the entire system.

But what about the existence of the devil?  So it comes down to this, "Did God create the devil?"  I brought up answering this question because I broached the idea about the history of purpose(s) to have started at the beginning of the creation of the universe.  The quick answer is that if we must rely on the belief that God created the universe, then God did create the devil.  For what purpose is the next question.

I am treading on thin ice here because I am neither a theologian or a philosopher. Will pragmatic thinking count?  Let's go back to several paragraphs earlier where, "principle of duality in the universe suggests that opposing forces are interconnected and essential for balance".

Did God have the power to create only good beings? God has already done that; we call them angels. So, here comes what I call the pragmatic approach. God created humans to have free will. The free will to do good or bad is  the purpose for why the devil was created (keeping in mind the universal duality).  It allows us to make a choice.  That would seem to be the practical answer, isn't it?  The freedom to choose is both a gift and a burden. It is presented to us as a choice between which path to take everyday we are on the road that we call life. Simply put, our life's journey will always take us to countless series of crossroads. It is the proverbial fork on the road where the choices we make are what will determine our fate. The devil's purpose is to entice or lead us to choices that are contrary to what God would want us to  make.  God gave us the power of free will, but  it  comes with a cost or reward.   

It is not a theological answer but the purpose of this musing is not to make it one. All that is perhaps worth remembering is that  we are endowed with the power to choose. And a responsibility to do what our conscience has equipped us to do.  Conscience is what influences behavior based on a lot of things, for example, our upbringing, our education, our environment and most of all, the path we preferred or the direction we choose, every time we are called upon to exercise our free will. 

P.S.

In prehistoric times the ancestors of avocados were dined on by large plant eaters that merely swallowed the fruit whole without biting into the seed which was bitter anyway (like most seeds). The avocado seed was dispersed that way through the animal's poop.  The seed is large and packed with nutrients that gave it a huge advantage in development as a well endowed seedling. The plant eaters that dined on it became extinct so why did the avocado not evolve with smaller seeds to adapt to  smaller foragers?  Perhaps it was then when human agriculture developed. Ancient farmers merely replanted avocado seeds thus ensuring the survival of the fruit to this day.  

Orchids are another example of extraordinary adaptation.  In the wild, they produce blooms to attract insects to pollinate the flowers.  Today, they are well adapted in people's homes and nurseries - one of the most extraordinary adaptations using the smartest creatures (us) to propagate and even develop new strains of beautiful flowers.  In 2026, people around the world will spend an estimated $2.3 billion on orchids and estimates of $4.5 billion in 2035.  And orchids, as a hobby by humans, live in comfort and care in people's homes.  

But we've become smarter too. Orchids kept indoors do not have insects to pollinate their flowers.  However, that is precisely why their blooms last a lot longer, waiting for the insect pollinator that will not show up, because as soon as the blooms are pollinated they will wilt to turn into seeds. So, in a way, by keeping them in the comfort of our homes we get to enjoy their blooms longer.

 

I spent a good amount of my woodworking hobby building an orchid tree at one of the coziest corners of our home. And these plants don't even bloom year round. I spend a good amount of late spring to late fall tending to them until they start blooming in late winter. These plants adapted themselves into a pampered life.  What is their purpose? You know the answer.

Peter and the Spider

Peter is a very shy but exceptionally intelligent boy of thirteen.  He could be in college today but he declined the offer of one ivy league school to get him into their program for gifted teenagers, free tuition and board, where he would have been enrolled as a biology major while pursuing his research on entomology.  It was his decision to decline and his parents agreed. 

He has very few friends and only  one whom he considers his best friend - a classmate named Abe.

Peter, as smart as he is, is singularly focused, perhaps even obsessively so, on just one subject outside of school work - insects; or bugs as his classmates describe it. To study insects more closely he invented something he calls a magnifying stereoscope, which enables him to see up close small individual insects in 3-D.  His well-off parents willingly spend the money that Peter needs, including renovating the large attic into a livable room, fully air conditioned with furniture but more importantly several tables, equipment and living spaces for insects worthy of their own miniature natural habitats. The parents feel every dollar is well spent, knowing he is not into drugs or alcohol as the other young kids are already into, who are not much older than Peter. Most of all, they always know where Peter is when he is not at school. He is at home tending to the ant farm, studying butterflies, etc. And more importantly, Peter is at the top of his class, albeit only in academics because he barely makes a passing grade in social skills.

Recently Peter invented another thing.  It's a super sensitive microphone that can pick up sounds and noises created by insects, in groups or as individuals.  So now, he can watch them up close and listen to them intimately, if there is such a thing with an insect.

Abe came one weekend afternoon.  He brought Peter a spider he found outside their garage. He had it in a match box. He thought Peter would be interested in this one uniquely looking spider.  Sure enough Peter was ecstatic about what Abe brought.  They spoke for a bit, ate some snacks, then Abe left.

Peter went to work right away. He has an enclosure of Plexiglass the size of a refrigerator  where he has a colony of fruit flies so he can formulate a new theory on insect mutation by conditioning their behavior through erratic temperature and humidity changes while feeding only on one variety of fruit - ripened papaya and nothing else. 

He trapped a couple of the flies. Moments earlier he had the spider moved into a plastic container the size and shape of a cigar box with a fine wire mess for a cover so he can observe the spider in full view and up close. Raising the cover slightly he introduced the two flies and left to retrieve his special equipment from downstairs.

Later he had the stereoscope and microphone setup for observation, all powered up including a special low voltage UV light. Immediately Peter noticed that the spider was in one corner of the box. In front of it was  one fly that was all wrapped up with white web.  At the opposite corner was the other fly alive but wary.

With headphones on, Peter peered into the stereoscope.  Then, expecting a crunching or slurping sound he picked up a voice.  He took the headphones off his ears to see if a radio or the phone extension was the source of the sound.  Nothing. He put the headphones back on and turned on the digital video recorder.  He heard the voice again.

Below is the transcript of the voice and Peter's.

(1643 H Saturday, 02/18/26)

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: You heard me. That was me, the first time.  It's still me now.

Long silence ..

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Hello! Surely you know my species. Highly evolved arachnid and unbelievably resourceful.

Peter: This can't be real!

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Oh, yes it is. You're a smart kid, for a human.  Come on, speak to me like a peer, okay? I am talking in your language. By the way, those are sophisticated equipment you have there.  I assume you made them?

Peter: I will for a moment entertain all doubts about my sanity but I must ask. How is this possible?

Pholcus phalangioides 1a:You want a short answer or a slightly sophisticated explanation?  What you just said, by the way, is an adult manner of speaking. You are thirteen, fourteen years old?

Peter: And you are likely just a figment of my imagination. Tell me right now, this is a trick.

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Yeah, it's a trick. In my previous life I was human. And I must have switched back and forth for a number of centuries now.  There, shockingly enough for you?

Brief silence

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Come on, you're a voracious reader. I know it's not all entomology books and articles you read.  You're a very curious kid.  I know you can explain this.

Peter: No.  I mean reincarnation is not real. A mere belief system rooted in India and Tibet.  Maybe Bhutan and two or more places. But it's not true. It is all science-defying lore or primitive belief systems.

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Well, conversation is over. Can I get back to my dining? And thank you for these two flies. Oh, these two are not reincarnated creatures.  Just so you know.

Peter: I can't believe this.

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Do you want a conversation or not?

Peter: You believe you are a recycled entity?

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: What I cannot believe is that you, of all brilliant young men, do not grasp the idea that  everything you see and touch are all recycled material.

Peter: Yes, but not one life form to another and back again. It is not scientific.

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: That's the best argument you can come up with.  It is not scientific? This whole earth, the entire solar system, including the sun are all recycled from something else. 

Peter: I know that. My point is that a human does not turn into a spider and a spider into a human. That does not make sense. Science does not support that.

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: What about stream of consciousness? Okay, okay, let's start from something you can grasp in your scientific mind. You've heard of Julius Caesar's last breath, haven't you?

Peter: Yes

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Explain it to me.

Peter: It is all about this hypothetical, even a statistical possibility that someone, me, you, could conceivably be breathing in some of Julius Caesar’s last breath after he was assassinated by Roman senators on the senate floor over two thousand years ago.

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Okay, how and what makes it more than just hypothetical?

Peter: Well, the idea is that as Julius Caesar at his last gasp and final exhalation his breath had twenty five sextillion molecules of air - 25 followed by 21 zeros of air. In just a couple of years those air molecules would have spread around the world, inhaled, exhaled umpteenth times over and over, and they're still out  there, here  and everywhere today, as we speak. 

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Good

Peter: But I will do you one better. One oxygen atom, expelled by a prehistoric fern millions of years ago was inhaled by T-rex, then exhaled it as a compound molecule of CO2, then absorbed by another fern or some other plant that later expelled the oxygen, keeping the carbon and the cycle started all over again.  And Julius Caesar could have inhaled that same oxygen atom  as he gasped and exhaled it as part of carbon dioxide compound before he died. But what has that got to do with you being a human in a previous life?

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Okay. You do know that the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter dictates that both can neither be created nor destroyed in the entire universe.  They can only change forms or convert from one to the other and vice versa but neither is created nor destroyed.

Peter: I know that. Just please explain to me what you are.  I mean, you couldn't have been some creature at one time and be another the next time.

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Do you believe that your mind exists outside of your physical brain?

Peter: You mean consciousness?

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Yes.

Peter: I can't prove it one way or the other.

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: That's what I'm telling you. Consciousness is independent of physiology but it is real. I am proof.  You are talking to a spider. And I will tell you this. I admit that in my various iterations I have not been exactly one that you would describe as a model of good character.  Every time my physical body ceased to exist I moved on to another but, and this is where I know you will roll your eyes, heaven or hell is what I made of my next life each time I moved on, so to speak, and you know what I mean.

Peter: That is what adherents of the reincarnation belief system go by. By that I am to assume that you were a bad human before your current life?  Unbelievable. Scientific nonsense and well beyond even the lowest form of logical thinking.

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: You are a smart kid. You are already arguing like a real adult.  For a teenager. But you are soon to learn some more. Have you ever wondered about how your intelligence had come and developed so rapidly in your young age? Have you wondered that perhaps you are a reincarnated Gregor Mendel or some earlier geneticists in the past century, or maybe you are Charles Darwin, reborn in the 21st century to perhaps make corrections and improvement on his theories?

Peter: Absolutely not. There is no basis for that supposition and clearly not supported by scientifically based logical processes.  No. Conversation ends here and now.

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Yes, it ends here. Let me go back to my dinner.

Peter: Listen to you. You're a spider, yet here you are dining on food I provided you. You call that punishment? Or, according to your supposition, this is hell for you?

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Look, what if I tell you that I was dining on fine foods, caviar and champagne in my prior life but I'm being punished for my greed and horrible treatment of my fellow human beings and now I am  eating fruit flies. Do I deserve this? Perhaps.  But here I am trying to educate and give you fair warnings about engaging in unacceptable behavior.  Fair warning, remember that.

Peter: You are lecturing me? I declined a fully paid scholarship despite my age because I do not want to get carried away by hubris and potentially damaging exposure to what young people today are exposed to in so-called higher places of learning. No, you do not need to lecture me.

Pholcus phalangioides 1a: Good. I am succeeding already. There is hope, after all, I will be reborn under better circumstances next time.

Peter: Let's wrap this up.  Go back to your dining while I go back to tending to the  other creatures that need my attention.

Two hours later, Peter was awakened from a surprisingly long nap by his mom, who was worried why Peter had not come down.  She found Peter with the left side of his head on an open textbook on his desk.

Mom: You know I don't want to come up here but it's now six thirty.  Your dad will be home soon. Dinner will still be at seven, as always.  Come down soon, okay?

Peter: Yes, Mom.  I'll be downstairs before seven, for sure.

Peter looked around to make sure everything was not overly messy.  The spider was still inside the plastic box. One fruit fly is gone and the other one is now wrapped up in white spider web. The video recorder is turned off and the other devices as well.  He remembered saving the video data into the cloud.  He will check it later.  Unbeknownst to him, by mistake, he had it saved into a Microsoft printer located at their neighbor's.  An elderly gentleman lives there but he has not really been using his computer or printer - waiting for a technician to fixt it. 

The technician did come by the next day.  He did the necessary fix, did some tests and set aside all the "scrap" prints that were on the printer's queue after he had the printer running. 

Now, my dear reader, you will be wondering  how I have possession of the transcript of the conversation between Peter and the spider.

Wonder if you will, but please be reminded that the musings you read here still go by the sub heading at the start of each blog that goes: 

"When you find yourself having to take a break from those that keep you on edge and stressed out, you can take the time to ponder with me some of the un-ponderable and the whimsical and lightly thought provoking issues you did not have the time to consider but now you may want to look into because you have a moment or two to spare or you just want some of your brain cells to be tickled out of slumber."

The Anatomy of Sacrifices

Why would  sacrifices have  anatomy?  Well, sacrifices have structure, though often hidden - visible to those who want to see or feel it - and there are motivations, varied degrees of intensity, purpose, and a beginning and an end. And this is how it is typically defined: "the act of giving up or losing something of value for the sake of something else to have a greater value or claim.."

That is one definition.

In Scriptures, it is both an act of worship and an expression of faith in the Divine. 

In some past cultures, sacrifices took on  a grisly macabre nature beyond comprehension today but was an acceptable practice then to please or placate the gods.

However, we do not have a monopoly on the capacity to sacrifice or on how to deem what it is.  Life, any life, apparently requires or demands sacrifices of one magnitude or another, that occurs even in the animal world where maternal sacrifices are acted on under extreme conditions.

Take one species of octopus. The "Graneledone boreopacifica, like all octopus species, is semelparous, meaning it reproduces only once in its lifetime. After laying her eggs in a carefully chosen location, often a rock crevice or other safe area, the mother devotes herself entirely to protecting and nurturing her clutch".

This octopus will spend as much as 4.5 years protecting the eggs from predators or other disturbances until they hatch. The unusually long incubation period is due to the cold temperatures at the bottom of the deep ocean, hence the extraordinarily long metabolic processes.  During that entire time the mother octopus will not feed, relying only on its fat reserves to stay alive. It is literally wasting away and dies as the eggs hatch.  Often, what remains of her body will feed the young hatchlings. No other definition of the ultimate sacrifice can match that.  But for a species that only reproduces once in its lifetime, we can say that such is the epitome of the ultimate sacrifice for the survival of the species. And by the way, octopuses are considered one of the most intelligent invertebrates on land or sea. The brain of the octopus is not centrally concentrated in its brain but outwardly connected to all eight tentacles so that each appendage can think independently on its own or in concert with the entire nervous system. 

We've read about the male praying mantis sacrificing itself as food to the female after mating.  The explanation is that the expectant mother is assured of an initial and immediately good nutrition by dining on the father of the soon  to be offspring.  I don't know how scientists figured that out but then what other reasons are there?

There are many other examples though not quite as dramatic as the two above. But one thing is certain - sacrifices are not only common but that life seems well provided with many ways that they can occur.  For life forms way below our intellectual capacities  to exhibit those traits may point to the fact that the capacity to sacrifice is all along a component required for the survival of the species.

This takes us to the level of sacrifices we, as a species, are capable of achieving. 

Pfc James Anderson  was born on Jan. 22, 1947.  At age 19 he enlisted in the Marine Corp in 1966.  The following year at just 20 years old his unit was sent to Vietnam. On Feb. 28, 1967, his unit was ambushed while on patrol. An enemy grenade was thrown at his platoon. Without hesitation he dove towards the grenade, covered it with his body and was killed when it exploded. His sacrifice saved several marines from serious injury or death.

"On August 21, 1968, he became the first African American U.S. Marine recipient of the Medal of Honor while serving in Vietnam."

In an eerily strange and almost retroactive coincidence, we go back to the previous  generation when on February 1, 1944 another heroic incident happened in another war - WWII. - with another Marine of the same last name.

Richard Beatty Anderson was born on Jan. 26, 1921. As you can see from the photo below, he was a white man. Wait till you read his story.

"Summary of Action for which He was Awarded the Medal of Honor

On 1 February 1944, during the assault on Roi Island in the Marshall Islands, Private First Class Richard Beatty Anderson was sheltering in a shell crater with three fellow Marines under intense enemy fire. As he prepared to throw a grenade at a nearby Japanese position, the grenade slipped from his grasp and rolled back into the crater where the men were crowded together."

Pfc Anderson "hurled himself onto the grenade, absorbing the full force of the explosion with his body. His deliberate and selfless act saved the lives of the Marines beside him at the cost of his own."

Did you make note of the date?  Both died in February, 23 years apart - one generation between them.  Both were Marines, one black, one white. Both recipients of the Medal of Honor.

Reincarnation buffs have this to say. Pfc Richard Anderson died in 1944, three years later he was reborn as James Anderson in 1947, to a black family.  The two heroic incidents seemed like a re-play, except that in Vietnam the grenade was thrown by the enemy.  It was as if Richard Anderson wanted to redo his heroism when it was not his fault and by sheer selfless sacrifice, he saved his fellow Marines (again).

Reincarnation or just plain simple coincidence is up to the reader to determine.

Just last week I got into a conversation with the nurse who took my vital signs (pulse, temperature, blood pressure, weight) before the doctor could see me in the other room. Since there was a patient before me I had to wait.  The nurse stayed with me until the other room became available. She proceeded to tell me her story when she realized my wife has Parkinson's to share her experience in care giving to a family member.

She is the eldest child with a younger handicapped brother - unable to speak and  suffering from epilepsy. Then a few years ago her mom was diagnosed with cancer. The nurse became caregiver to both.  During all that time she took only night shift jobs so she can take care of them during the day. Her mom passed away.  She still had to care for her brother.  The brother, at 44, died two years ago. The nurse never had  time to enter into any personal relationship of her own so she never married. 

When she finished her story, I did not have the courage to tell her my own caregiving story vis-a-vis  my wife's Parkinson's.  Compared to what she went through, my so-called sacrifice is petty and a minuscule facsimile of her own sacrifices.

I hope I have given enough credence to what  anatomy of sacrifices mean.

 

Does Every Decision Really Matter?

Without us realizing it, we ask this question often, whether we actually  say it or not, every time  we do things or merely contemplate on doing something, or even just saying something to somebody, or anybody. And, for that matter, does everything we ever do really matter. Before we go on let's  just for a moment revisit the one famous fable about the "butterfly effect".  We find that it is more than just a fable because, while hypothetical in every sense, it is profoundly and sensibly within the realm of loosely correlated causality; keeping in mind, however, that there is a big difference between correlation and causation.  The embellishment to the little story is all mine.

"Out in the plains of the Serengeti, a lone butterfly was going about its business from flower to flower. Not too far away is a pride of lions patiently waiting for a herd of wildebeest to come closer. The butterfly, as it flutters its wings, hovering and landing on several flowers, causes some of the disturbed pollen to be carried away by the wafting air. A few of the pollen went into the nostrils of the lead lioness, thus causing it to sneeze uncontrollably and loudly - loud enough to spook the ever alert and nervous wildebeest. They turned, saw the lions, and they panicked. The resulting stampede of  several thousand wildebeests soon after, caused a cloud of swirling dust to ascend with the rising warm air. The dust clouds joined the Jetstream up above, which somehow changed its density and air speed. In a matter of three days, the global weather pattern had changed considerably and by the seventh day, a typhoon had developed on the Bay of Bengal.  In a few more days, Bangladesh was devastated by strong winds and flooding that followed.  All that was caused by one butterfly."

Can one event from the activity of a single butterfly   really cause that much devastation? 

Or, how about the decision of one Dutch family during the German occupation of their homeland when they decided to hide an entire Jewish family in their basement until the end of the war.  Had the Dutch family not done it an entire  lineage could have ended right at the moment of their capture.  Instead, the Jewish family survived and later emigrated to the U.S. at  the end of the war.  The family's children went on to excel in school, one became a doctor and another an engineer. Two generations later the Jewish family's descendants continue to contribute to the betterment of the community of people around them wherever they settled, always acknowledging the remembrance of a distant debt of gratitude. That was just one story.  Just imagine many more stories from just that one global tragedy of a war that raised so many acts of courage and sacrifices that in the words of Winston Churchill, "Never was so much owed by so many to so few".

Richard Feynman, acclaimed theoretical physicist in his lecture on the chain of probabilities asked and answered, "Why one small decision changes everything".  With anecdotes he went on to tell how one decision,  large or small, changes the outcome that affects all outcomes that followed. Of course, his discussions were from the points of view of a physicist. That is true but then I ask, "Where did it all begin?" You see, from the question and from every example, before every decision or choice  was made, there were conditions that already existed that were also products of decisions, choices and events prior.  It is as if the decision maker was merely being part of a continuous chain of events and decisions that he or she may have little to do with.

Decisions begin as  mental processes, assuming that the decider did take the time to think everything through.   A 3-1/2 pound mass of tissues and nerves and blood vessels sit atop between the two shoulders of every human  decider.  Inside that mass of tissue are approximately 100 billion nerve cells or neurons that are capable of making billions upon billions of connections from neuron to neuron  at any one time. Is that where we begin?  How about family upbringing, inherited genes, mental trauma, even nutrition, etc. Of course not.  But just for fun, let's go back to  one specific point prior to but somewhere that is simple enough - the early universe.

Eons of time had elapsed before the universe had its first atoms. Then everything was made up of hydrogen and a little bit of helium and nothing else.  It took more eons of time before there was oxygen because massive stars (all made of hydrogen) at the later stages of their existence that took millions of years needed to explode to create the other elements, one of which was oxygen.

That was crucial because only then that the combination of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen gave the universe its first water. How is it then that neither hydrogen nor oxygen may exist as a liquid at room temperature, yet when the two of them combined we have liquid water? Perhaps we do not  want to begin there although as far as we know only our earth has water in such abundance that makes life possible, significantly, human life - able to ponder and wonder about these things.

Where do we begin? Well, we can go back to where one hundred billion neurons reside - in each individual human brain. 

One U.S. president at the beginning of 2008 did say that elections have consequences.  

We find out, of course, that all the  neural activities of all the voters combined in one election decided all past elections.  Elections that had consequences.  Does that explain the butterfly effect?  It will be one massive undertaking to explain, well beyond one blog.

Suffice it to say that everything begins where everything is still small. Did a career criminal begin with one stolen candy bar from  a grocery store? But then what was it that caused one man to hunt down early Christians only to turn his life around the opposite way and write several gospels of the New Testament? His writings are now known as Paul's Letters to various recipients - from "to the Thessalonians to the Hebrews", and nine others in between.

So, now we may begin anywhere. The question is whether anything that occurs anywhere and everywhere has a consequence that is worthy of consideration as to have any effect on everything, or just anything. As a general rule, yes, when taken from the point of view of cause and effect.  But it is always from someone's point of view, or is it?  This takes us to another common if not purely parlor-esque question as in a cocktail party setting that asks, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound"? The question always recedes back to "from whose point of view" is the consequence being assessed. We don't want to go there because we are not prepared to dig a bottomless pit into which we may end up dumping an infinite number of scenarios no matter where we start.  You see, from the butterfly effect story, would it have mattered if, say, it occurred in ancient times when there were no people living then in the present day country of Bangladesh?

Well, here we are. Back to the one hundred billion neurons again.

For  conclusion: Yes, every decision we make does indeed matter.  Just by believing that can mean that from here on in, you and I will take great care in every little or big decision we make, convinced that it will have one small or large difference, however inconsequential it is.

One thing to keep in mind is that consequences do not just add up. They actually multiply.

Let me end with a portion of what I wrote in Dec. 2016, "What's Fishy With Human Nature":

"There was a B-movie that reminded me of how one little trickle of a white lie could cascade into an unstoppable waterfall.

A guy called in to his boss with a little lie for not coming to work one morning.  He lied that he was taking care of a sick daughter at home.  Granted he was quite unhappy with his job he didn’t exactly want to quit.  He doubled up on his excuse next time he felt like not showing up for work again by telling that his sick daughter was now at the hospital.  So the one simple lie has taken a life of its own as he lied to his wife as well, doing his routine task of taking his daughter to a baby sitter every morning, but never said anything about not going to work. The third time he called in  for not coming to work his boss fired him over the phone.  Then, again bereft of any thought process, he doubled up his lie further by telling his boss that his daughter just died at the hospital.

His daughter was perfectly fine but his boss softened immensely by asking  him back to work the following day; his boss spoke kindly to him and later took up a collection for him from very willing co-workers to help him out.  One morning a kind co-worker went as far as to bring a home-made quiche to his home.  His wife opened the door to greet the co-worker but his quick maneuver saved the day for him as he shortened the visit without alerting his clueless wife but to the bewilderment of his co-worker.  Of course, as always with cases like this, things unravel rapidly with devastating consequences.  This was fiction but how many have we seen in real life where one simple lie intensified to more lies and ultimately to a disastrous resolution, shattering lives and reputation or sometimes resulting in violence?

Remember, in real life consequences don't just add up; they multiply.