The problem may lie in the use of the word entropy. It is perhaps one of the more poorly understood concepts around. In the literal microscopic thermodynamic definition, it is a measure of the number of available permutations of a given system. For a highly ordered system, the number of possible permutations is low, while a highly disordered state would have many more. It is therefore often used as a proxy for measuring the amount of disorder in a system. In the macroscopic definition, is a quantity that parameterizes a system (similar to temperature, free energy, enthalpy, etc.), and it is noticed that in any closed system, the entropy will always increase or remain constant over time, it never decreases. In equation form, the change in entropy is defined to be the change in heat transfer divided by the temperature. So you can see it has to do with heat, which is known to be inherently inefficient at conserving usable energy, and increases disorder in a closed system.
The problem is that entropy (proxy for order) is often misused to imply trends in the complexity of a system. Specifically, I often hear the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy always increases in a closed system) used as "proof" that evolution cannot occur. This assertion is completely baseless in the facts that increasing entropy does not imply that a system can locally become more complex, the Earth is not a closed system, and evolution is not a statistically random process, which is what entropy is limited to.
Don't know if this helps at all, or hurts. But I see Mojo's comments as implying that if we allow ourselves to, our lives will tend toward increasing disorder.
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
