Saving Lives, Responsibility and Euthanasia

Good Morning Reader,

I have always been rather fond of novels featuring castaways or similar scenarios where a person is stranded and must do whatever they can to survive. Recently I re-read Robinson Crusoe (for those who haven't read it I strongly recommend it) and was struck by an occurrence that seems unusual by today's standards and is also mentioned in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Both Dr. Frankenstein and Poor Mr Crusoe find themselves shipwrecked during their misadventures and are rescued by other people who furnish them with clothing, shelter, food and money to ensure their continued survival. This is at odd with what I would call the norm today where saving someone's life would generally mean they are in your debt instead of the other way round.

Having encountered similar themes in a few literary sources now I have been wondering about this change in the way people consider saving another persons life and the implications of doing so. In a situation of life and death most of us would not (or hope they would not) hesitate to save another person if you have the ability to do so. Whether this puts that person in your debt or you in theirs is something I would like to examine more closely.

So let's start at the beginning. Where does the idea of someone owing you if you save their life come from? On the surface it seems very obvious. You have done something for them so they should do something for you. It is in line with a basic understanding of fairness. Many tribal cultures had concepts of "life debts" or similar scenarios where saving someone's life means that they owe you that life and should spend it repaying you.
On the other hand figuring out how people started feeling responsibility for those they save is a bit harder to identify. In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein it is expressed as the kind of thing any "good Christian" would do for another, implying that at some point at least some groups of Christianity were encouraging such a practice and where one religion is doing it I imagine others must have also promoted such behaviour. It is also a hallmark of clearly defined "civility" to me in that it requires the average person to have the means to assist beyond just saving someone's life.

My personal feelings on the matter is that if you do save someone's life you are responsible for ensuring that person has the means to continue supporting their own life. In most circumstances of life-saving actions you do not have the opportunity to confirm that a person wants their life saved prior to saving their life and as such it is unfair to render a service to someone without prior confirmation of the price of that service and then expect them to pay for it. Following that logic if you save someone you should not expect any kind of reward for doing so (other than the warm feelings and gratitude you are likely to receive for doing such a good deed). Furthermore in saving a life you are actually taking something from a person; their free will and right to determine their own fate. If you want to take away someone's right to choose how their life concludes you have to be willing to accept responsibility for that which includes ensuring that person has the means to continue living in a dignified and comfortable manner. Which leads into a related topic which I feel needs to be mentioned due to it's importance; euthanasia.

Based on my previous statements in this article I'm sure most of you can tell that I believe euthanasia is a right everyone has. I am a supporter of free will and a person's right to make their own choices as long as they are not harming other people (although quite confusingly I do not believe free will exists). As such I think if a person is at a point where they no longer wish to continue their life (and have not agreed to support another person or dependant) it is their right to end their life or to have the end of their life assisted by another if they are not capable of doing so themselves. Of course this is a very controversial issue and I expect many people will disagree with me so I look forward to hearing any additional information that might convince me otherwise.

Fears And My Experiences

Greetings Reader,

Today I would like to share a terrifying experience that occurred during my youth which has often returned to the forefront of my mind for well over a decade now. Whenever I am feeling introspective or unsafe it seems that this experience is never far from the surface of my conscious thought, waiting for a moment to jump up and seize me with irrational fright. I have never been able to identify the root of this fear and it is only recently that I have taken the initiative to do some Googling about the object of my fear and learned that it is somewhat of a phenomenon. So without further ado here is a recount of my experience:

It was quite late at night in the home of my parents. I was still a boy of about 14 years and had for some reason managed to stay up late but it was finally time for bed at around midnight or just a little after. I had just reached the cusp of sleep, my eyes had drooped almost to closing before I had even turned out my bedside light. My room was bathed in dim, shaded light. As my eyelids made their rounds of closing and opening, less and less each time as my sleepiness overcame my adolescent desire to never sleep I was suddenly confronted with an unprecedented event. As my eyes came open again I realised with great shock that I was not alone in my room. There was a dark figure standing in front of my bedroom door. He was taller than a person should be, the top of his head being just taller than the frame of my door. He was far skinnier than a person should be, despite his height his torso tapered in toward the waist inhumanly and his arms and legs could only be described as spindly at their thinnest points. His features were indistinguishable, his whole body appearing to be impossibly dark despite the light that should have been illuminating him like the door and posters behind him. I lied there, paralysed with extreme terror at this sudden and unexpected intruder. My mind barely functioning until suddenly he rushed toward me. His arm stretched out as he crossed the room in a fraction of a second, far quicker than any man is capable of until the moment he reached me he disappeared. I sat up, so shocked that I couldn't possibly conceive of sleeping however I was also far too afraid to get up and seek the company and safety of another human.

I am glad to say that I have never had another experience as harrowing as that one, never again has my sleep been disturbed so directly by this figure although he has occasionally appeared in my darkest nightmares. Despite having experienced intermittent visits to the memory of this deep-seated fear I have never until a few months ago sought any further information about the experience. However upon searching for "dark figures" I stumbled upon a world-wide myth known as Slender Man. Drawings and depictions of this Slender Man immediately stuck me as very similar to the figure I have been so fearful of and it appears many people have had varying experiences relating to him.

I consider myself to be a very rational person and have never given any credit to the supernatural. But this has long been perhaps my deepest and darkest fear. I hope to dis-empower my fear by sharing it with others and hearing the rationalities of other people. If anyone else has anything to contribute or perhaps has had their own experience like this please feel free to comment or contact me.

Selling Out

Hello Reader,

Welcome back to my improved blog page. You may notice that I now have advertising because I'm a total sell out. This is very exciting for me as this has the potential to earn me a free scotch once every decade so be sure to visit regularly.

I've got a few new topics in the works now that the Christmas period is over but uni hasn't started, the perfect time for thinking deep thoughts about things that probably don't really matter and nothing can be done about anyway. I look forward to seeing you all back again.

Luke.

Right or Wrong

Good afternoon reader,

I hope everyone enjoyed their holidays. Mine was bittersweet after my uncle, Brian, passed away just before Christmas.

However the holiday period along with the passing meant I got to see many members of my family I haven't seen in a while. People who you get along with regardless of personal attitudes or beliefs just because they are family. I also got to catch up with quite a few friends and after seeing everyone found myself in quite an introspective mood.

My thoughts focused largely on people's need to be right and many of our outright refusal to acknowledge when we are wrong. I have certainly been guilty of this many times in my life and I'm sure those close to me see me as a stubborn know-it-all because of these situations. But why do we have this intense need to always appear to be right and what effects might it be having?

When I read novels and watch films from prior to the last 30-40ish years it doesn't appear to me that people had this particular trait; not like we have today at least. People seem more ready to acknowledge other's superiority over them and in many cases it was the norm to treat people as though they know things you don't until proven otherwise. A stark contrast to today where people often treat others like nothing until they prove their worth.

Following along a few theories I can see a few potential sources of this change in attitude. The first is popular culture. Films and novels like James Bond, Catch Me If You Can and other similar stories have enchanted us with the concept of a person going where they please and getting whatever they want simply by acting like they have the right. It's natural for people to emulate those they idolise and I imagine many people might have consciously or subconsciously tried this behavior out for themselves. I believe many people call this "fake it till you make it".

Another possible cause is a side-effect of our new found love of equality. If no one is below you then no one can be above you. This might subconsciously give one the idea that it doesn't matter how well informed, well researched or logical another person might be about any given matter. They are still your equal and their opinion still can't outweigh your own.

So what are the effects of this society of fakers we have become? I'm not quite sure what the effects are at an individual level. People still seem to be making friends, having meaningful relationships and living happy lives. On a larger scale though I suspect that this might be a contributing factor to the divisive nature of many societies today and is fueling increasingly aggressive conflicts as a result of that. When everyone thinks they know better than those with expertise, knowledge and wisdom it becomes much harder to unify people and implement good ideas. This blog is evidence of one guy presuming he has something meaningful to say about things like this very topic.

A Thought About Taxation

Hello Reader,

Over the past couple of weeks I've been giving a lot of thought to taxation in Australia, particularly given the passing of Gough Whitlam and the great impact he had on the operation of Australia.

For some time now I've been a supporter of tax equality. For those of you who are less familiar with taxation systems the concept of tax equality is that everyone should be taxed the same regardless of their financial status or any other factors that might cause a person to be taxed more or less than another person. Not to get too far from my intended topic but tax equality is great not only for promoting equality but it also means people are not being punished for their success or rewarded for their underachievement (not to say everyone in lower income groups are underachievers).

But my thoughts of late have been more pragmatic and focused on the application of taxation to the nation and the efficiency of the various forms of taxation.

At the moment we have three main internal forms of taxation which take the form of the income tax, corporate or business tax and sales tax. There are a whole slew of other lesser taxes such as capital gains, fringe benefits, etc. but the main points at which the government takes it's cut of all money in Australia is when it's paid to an employee, when someone buys a product and when it's received by a business.

Is having these three tax points in the life cycle of the dollar the most efficient way of obtaining government revenue? I'm not so sure. Now these three taxes all have long-standing traditions and all have their merits but to take a purely efficiency-minded axe to them we need to consider what they achieve and what is needed for them to achieve such goals. The goal of taxation is of course to keep government funded so that the public services of the nation can continue to function. The government needs a certain level of income each year to be able to function. To do this it has set up the several forms of taxation to extract money from the economy which it can then put back in as government spending. The idea is that government will allow for focused efforts on necessary services that aren't necessarily profitable and would be neglected or mismanaged by the private sector.

So the first question we need to ask is if the government needs X amount of dollars to fulfill it's commitments why does it need so many different kinds of tax? One reason is that to only have one tax might seem overly onerous on the applicable sector however we all know that any increases in taxation get passed on to me and you as a consumer. If the government adds a dollar per packet of excise tax to cigarettes the company doesn't pay that dollar for you, the smoker pays that dollar. This applies to both sales tax and business tax. Income tax is also clearly applied to the individual so when it comes down to it we can see that all taxation is carried by the individual people who make up a nation one way or another.

Which leads me to ask why tax it at different points in the cycle of money? Certainly I can see why some people or groups would want it that way but it's not efficient and it's not practical. The most practical method of extracting tax would be to do it in as few transactions as possible and with as little additional administration as possible. The answer is businesses. The vast majority of businesses already track all their incoming and outgoing expenditure in detail, that information is valuable and useful and enhances their ability to conduct business. So they have already done most of the work. If all tax were paid by businesses for us there would be no need for individual tax returns or sales tax, just a single tax payable by all businesses on money they are tracking anyway. Minimal administration, no need to have the bumbling masses struggle their way through a complicated tax return. The government wouldn't need to employ hundreds and thousands of people, publish detailed guides and have websites built to assist the entire population with understanding and filing tax returns and then auditing those people and punishing them for messing up the whole complicated system.

Could save us all a lot of effort and money.

Calendars. Why So Stupid?

Hello Reader,

It's been a while since my last post as I have my exams this week and next but I have been thinking about the Gregorian Calendar we all use and wondering why it wasn't touched up along with most other measurements when the metric system came in.

Sure many of us find it perfectly easy to effortlessly recall the 12 months, how many days each consists of and all the other nuances that come with it. Others manage using memory techniques such as the old rhyme (30 days has September, etc) or the knuckle counting thing I never learned or thanks to technology just use their phone (a very practical solution). But do we really need a series of techniques to help us with something as simple as the days of the year? Isn't there an easier way?!

I think that there is. The problem though is that with 365 days in the year it doesn't fit simply into any nice round numbers for a month to be hence a system with four 30 day months, seven 31 day months and one odd 28 day month or to complicate it further one 29 day month once every four years. But 30 is a pretty round number that people already associate with the duration of a month and we can use that. If you divided the year into 30 day months though you end up with 5 or 6 days in change somewhere.

This isn't a problem though as people love holidays. Many of the world's cultures and religions already set aside one (or many) times of the year for celebration, relaxation, prayer or whatever else takes their fancy. It's a point of contention for many people ensuring that society respects their particular beliefs or culture and protects their rights to participate in their own holidays.

So what we would end up with is twelve 30 day months similar to what we have now plus a holiday period of 5 days around new years end/beginning which would be religiously and culturally neutral. No rhymes, no counting your knuckles and no technological assistance required.

Long Term Plans - Science Fiction?

Good Afternoon Reader,

This is a concept I've been forming in my mind for a while now but I suppose it's as good a time as any to put it out in the open.

Many of you will be familiar with the concept of a Dyson Sphere already but for those of you who aren't it's a theoretical device that a very advanced species would construct around a star to harvest as much energy from it as possible.
You can read more about it at either of these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
http://earthsky.org/space/what-is-a-dyson-sphere

Today though I will be discussing another concept which is similar in scope but much more achievable with today's technology and resources. There is no common name for what I have been thinking of that I am aware of but I think there should be as it seems an important step in our development as an advanced species. So let's get into it.

While a Dyson Sphere encompasses a star my concept is for a mega-construction that would encompass the Earth. Mankind has three basic building blocks of our society today which are water, power and data. With enough of these three things there is very little we are unable to achieve but getting these everywhere we might want or need them can be problematic and human populations tend to become centralised where these things are readily available. So to ensure a backbone infrastructure supplying these things on a global scale would require a global project. I envision it as a series of rings around the Equator, the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn with tremendous capacity for the flow of power, data and water. The rings would then be joined from North to South in key points; on Earth most likely from North to South America, Europe to Africa and Asia to Australia. This grid of power, water and data could then be linked up to major sources of each and additional links could be provided off the backbone grid to reach most areas of the world.

This is of course not the kind of thing that could be done today or quickly. It would be a monumental undertaking over decades and certain sections will clearly offer more value than others, joining the Northern hemisphere through the Tropic of Cancer for example will be lower cost and higher yield than joining the Southern hemisphere through the Tropic of Capricorn. The economics of it's construction would be something for a future generation to determine.