The standard appliances. For example, most people in developed countries have a dishwasher, which may or may not be worth the cost and room used. Most people probably would want a refrigerator, microwave, stove, and washer/drier if they thought about it.... but most people probably haven't thought about it. I personally do not have a dishwasher, microwave, or dryer because they are not worth the room they take up. I know some people who would do just fine with a chest freezer but no refrigerator, and/or with a microwave but no stove; I lived for a year without a refrigerator with no troubles (but I was in a part of the world in which no one had a refrigerator, which helps a lot).

This is particularly interesting habit, since many people spend a few years in college with few if any of these appliances, but automatically assume that they need them once they get a apartment/house.

(FWIW, I am not a radical minimalist nor particularly efficient; I have a rice cooker, electric kettle, and toaster oven, which are technically redundant since I also have a stove and oven.)

"The ways we use the toilet" is particularly relevant right now, with many countries seeing an increase in toilet paper shortages while maintaining the standard level of bidet shortages. If more people knew how to use a bodna/lota, people would be a lot less stressed now.

Very interested, but not willing to move more than 2-3 hours away; am nowhere near CA.

If it is severe enough that you are posting here about it making you feel bad, it is worth trying to replace it with a mental habit that works equally well to prevent future errors but feels better.

It is good to gain control over your mental habits in general, and this sounds like a good place to start.

If those statements appear true to you, no other analysis of this behavior is likely necessary.

It is interesting to note that if we quietly pass away and 50 million years later intelligent lungfish build up a civilization, they would presumably have good evidence that we were here, and would have good reason to assume that civilizations arise about once every 50 million years on average. Our effect on the Earth has probably been great enough that they will not have significant evidence from previous periods to contradict this assumption. In the case of large scale planetary civilizations, only the first one is likely to be in a position to reliably notice a delay in the appearance of previous civilizations longer than the pause between themselves and the immediately previous civilization. Therefore it may be reasonable to believe that, if 10 civilizations arise on the average planet, 90% of them will believe that they are probably midway through a long succession of civilizations.

If we are the only civilisation to exist in the history of the Earth, then we will probably become extinct not in mild way, but rather in a way which will prevent any other civilisation from appearing. There is higher probability of future (man-made) catastrophes which will not only end human civilisation, but also prevent any existence of any other civilisations on Earth.

I don't believe that this follows. It is surprising that we are apparently the only civilization to so far appear on Earth, but if we accept that we are, we should not assume that we have accomplished this by destroying the future.

However, while I feel strongly that this is this case, I do not feel confidant that I can express it in a way that would be understood by someone who does not agree with me.

If someone could explain clearly why I am right, or alternatively, why I am wrong, I would greatly appreciate it.

(For context, here is what I would write given my currently semi-formed understanding: "while it makes sense to compare ourselves to a time-line independent view of the world to test the probability that our assumptions about the world are correct, it does not make sense to assume that our assumptions about the world will guide the future.")

A simple justification of a slightly less extreme position is easy enough: there were many sane people who did not predict the value of the internet, indicating that being sane and smart are not sufficient to predict such things.

There are plenty of quotes from people who were supposed to be experts (or at least well-educated) saything that heavier than air flight was impossible, computers would always be room-sized monstrosities of limited use, etc. I assume that this quote is pretty much the same idea (that future technology is unpredictable), but using a technology that is 1. more recent, and thus more relatable, and 2. not simply a matter of technology, but of adapted use; that is, most smart people might have guessed that the early internet could be made faster, webpages better, and the network more comprehensive. They simply didn't see the value that this would produce, and so assumed that technology would not move in that direction.

May not be as effective as you hope. I experience this and find it vaguely annoying. The only people who have a reason to talk/post about it are the people who enjoy it, but that doesn't mean that they are in the majority.

I am an introvert and this effect is strong for me. But the best way to see if it works for you is to try it.