I'm at that age, no matter how often I deny it, when the words "in my day", or something like them, spring too easily into the conversation.
I used to think such words and what they imply were the domain of old(er) people, but their significance has finally dawned on me.
They
mean, in correct context, that I have experiences of another time that enable me to compare them with "now". It means I have lived through times that, while not perfect, were actually better in some respects, than the present. "In my day" usually precedes a commentary on modern technology/music/morals/ethics with a comparison of the same in a time years or decades before, with the latter shown in a better light.
Oddly enough, a few years or decades ago, older people were doing exactly the same thing, comparing "their day" with the "present" and finding fault with the latter.
Those older people also had similar stories of years or decades before when their forebears prefixed a commentary with "in my day".
Which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the further back in time we look, the better things were.
Therefore, at some point at the beginning of Earth's history, obviously when humans were around to make comparisons, everything was at its peak and the world was in a "Golden Age".
To take that further, if all the proponents of "in my day" are correct, then the first few moments of homo sapiens' life on the planet was the best it would ever be, and every generation that followed lived in a less perfect time or only made it worse themselves.
Until now, when society is at its nadir. But not quite. Of course it necessarily follows that things will only get worse to allow the "in my day" discourse to spread through future generations.
I look forward to the current generation waxing lyrical about all the good things of today in comparison with those of tomorrow and I laugh at any effort - obviously futile - to make any improvements.
The future looks bleak but it has to be the best argument ever against cryogenic preservation of humans.
We are getting bigger; taller, yes (I missed out there) but larger overall, to the extent that obesity statistics are at an all-time high and growing still.
So where lies the blame?
With the individual, obviously, for eating too much and exercising too little.
That's a no-brainer.
But it wouldn't hurt the restaurant industry to have a look at itself, either.
Nutritionists and weight loss experts tell us it's healthier to reduce our portion sizes, but when we eat out for lunch or dinner, we're presented with plates piled high with food and encouraged to eat it.
We're naturally polite, most of us, and it's expected that we'll compliment the chef by doing justice to the food. It's rude to send a plate back with some of the meal still on it; we've been brought up that way. Thanks Mum.
But how many of us would feel more comfortable with smaller portions?
I don't mean nouvelle cuisine tiny (How did you find your steak, sir? - I lifted a pea and there it was!), just a bit smaller.
We don't have to eat until we're full and our bodies would thank us for eating less.
If the price reflects the amount of food on the plate, perhaps it would cost less to eat out and more of us could afford to do it more often.
And sometimes we like to leave room for pudding.
Watching Britain's Got Talent on Thursday night (now, there's a confession!) and was amused to see a notice occasionally appear on the screen. The show features variety acts that perform in front of judges but their votes come from the public who send their preferences via text.
The notice superimposed over the action on the screen informs New Zealand viewers that voting is not available in this country.
They had to tell us that? Are we really that thick that we would attempt to send a text to vote on a show that was recorded more than a month ago in England?
Mind you, we would sell a cup of coffee with a warning that the contents may be hot, or packets of peanuts with a message that the contents could contain nuts.
Must we always cater to the lowest common denominator? It seems the answer is "yes".
We're dumbing ourselves down but we're too stupid to notice.
I wonder how many New Zealanders tried to vote anyway? There would have been some. Save your votes for Dancing with the Stars, the New Zealand version.