I'm on a late schedule these days, so I was walking in a neighborhood in Berkeley. Three raccoons crept up, and I stopped to watch them for a bit. One of them appeared to be vigorously scratching an itch on his(?) back.
Then he sort of stuck out his leg and seemed lick it. (I tried to get pictures, but wasn't fast enough.)
Then, right in front of me, one of them mounted another, and started humping.
This was pretty surprising. All the raccoons that I had so far encountered had been pretty shy and cautious: going to hide in the storm-drains when I got too close, for instance.
But in this case, my being only 2 or 3 yards away did not deter them.
They did look over at me occasionally, and they did slow down when I moved, but that's all.
You'd think that this is a compromising position, and that it would be a survival risk to be having sex near large, unknown animals.
The one on top (the male?) would periodically make a sort of rasping/ clicking "kikikikiki" sound, while his face sort of vibrated. I projected that this was an expression of pleasure.
(I tried to get video, but it was too dark to capture much. Sorry.)
(Notably, they had positioned themselves _right_ in the shadow of a tree. There was decent light on both sides, but they were in the dark. Which is why I don't have good video. Perhaps that was intentional? For safety / privacy?)
I watched them for a few minutes, musing about being an adult male of a sexual species and how I ought to orient to that, and about the meaning we do or don't attribute to sex.
Then I continued on my way.
I came back around to that spot again about an hour later and they were still at it!
In the same spot!
I thought that most animal copulation was pretty brief, but apparently not for raccoons (or at least these raccoons).
Again, you'd think that long copulation times would be a survival liability. But maybe it's a spandrel?
It might be the result of sexual competition?
Now, though, they were much louder, loud enough that I could hear it from half a block a way.
The one on the bottom was periodically making making a piercing, almost screeching noise.
I claim that, if it matters for world history who wins WWII (as just one example), then the great man theory of history is straightforwardly correct.
Bismark and Hitler come to mind: if you substitute them with their counterparts from nearby worlds, the power balance of Europe, and the world, looks radically different in their time and, I think, today.
And I think it DOES matter who wins WWII (for instance), because, at minimum, which nations have the "center of mass" of power is going to influence the way the deployment of transformative AI plays out.
Question: Have Moral Mazes been getting worse over time?
Could the growth of Moral Mazes be the cause of cost disease?
I was thinking about how I could answer this question. I think that the thing that I need is a good quantitative measure of how "mazy" an organization is.
I considered the metric of "how much output for each input", but 1) that metric is just cost disease itself, so it doesn't help us distinguish the mazy cause from other possible causes.