Why Assisted Dying Is a State Responsibility

 

Why Assisted Dying Is a State Responsibility

The question of assisted dying is a deeply personal and difficult one. It's an issue of autonomy and dignity in the face of suffering. In the UK Parliament's debate on this topic, a core argument emerges from a fundamental inconsistency in how the state treats personal health decisions. While getting sick or old are personal processes, the state is heavily involved in assisted healing. Therefore, the same logic dictates that the state should also be involved in assisted dying.

---

The Core Inconsistency

The state already plays a massive role in our healthcare. We have a National Health Service (NHS) that provides a wide range of treatments and care, all designed to help people heal and prolong life.¹ This includes everything from simple medications to complex, life-saving surgeries. We spend billions of pounds each year on doctors, hospitals, and medical research.² This is a form of state-assisted healing, and we collectively agree that it's a necessary and moral function of government.

This state involvement is not seen as an intrusion; rather, it's a fundamental duty to support the health and well-being of citizens. We don't say that treating cancer is a personal matter and should be left to the individual and their family alone. Instead, we have a public system in place to assist.

If the state is so deeply involved in assisting people to live, why does its responsibility stop at the point where a person, facing incurable and unbearable suffering, wishes to die? The decision to end one's life under these circumstances is just as personal as the decision to seek treatment for an illness. To deny assisted dying is to say that the state can help you live but cannot help you die, even when living has become a burden that a person no longer wishes to bear. This creates a moral and ethical imbalance in our healthcare system.

Addressing Concerns

Of course, there are significant concerns about assisted dying. The risk of foul play, pressure on vulnerable individuals, and ethical issues are very real and must be addressed. However, these concerns are not insurmountable. Many countries have already implemented assisted dying laws with strict safeguards, including:

• Multiple physician approvals: Requiring more than one doctor to confirm the patient's terminal diagnosis and mental capacity.

• Waiting periods: Ensuring the decision is not made impulsively.

• Patient self-administration: In some cases, the patient must be the one to take the final dose, ensuring the act is truly voluntary.³

• Mental health evaluations: To confirm the patient is not suffering from treatable depression or other mental health conditions that may be influencing their decision.

These safeguards demonstrate that it is possible to create a system that respects individual autonomy while protecting the vulnerable. The debate should not be about whether to allow assisted dying, but how to implement it safely and compassionately.

In conclusion, if the state's role is to assist its citizens in their most vulnerable moments, then that responsibility must extend to both living and dying. To provide a public service for assisted healing but not for assisted dying is a logical and ethical contradiction that the UK Parliament should resolve.

---

 

時間問題：我們為何不將時間測量納入國際單位制（SI）？

我們不將時間測量納入公制系統，是因為我們目前以 60 秒、60 分鐘和 24 小時為基礎的計時方式，已經深深植根於我們的文化和技術中。改變它將會造成巨大的混亂，並且幾乎沒有任何實際好處。與長度或重量不同（它們的十進制系統提供了直接的換算，例如 1000 克等於 1 公斤），一個以十進制為基礎的時間系統會破壞我們所有的時鐘、日曆和根深蒂固的習慣。

---

我們不改變時間測量的所有原因

以下是我們堅持使用舊系統的主要原因：

1. 歷史與文化的惰性： 我們目前的系統非常古老，可追溯到使用六十進制計數系統的蘇美爾人和巴比倫人。這個以 12 和 60 為關鍵數字的系統貫穿了整個歷史，是我們共同人類經驗的一部分。

2. 可分割性： 數字 60 是一個高度可除盡的數字。這意味著它可以被許多其他數字整除（1、2、3、4、5、6、10、12、15、20、30 和 60）。這對於將時間分割成相等的部分（例如半小時或四分之一小時）非常有用。這使得我們目前的系統在日常使用中比十進制系統更具彈性，因為十進制只能被 2 和 5 整除。

3. SI 單位制已經在使用中： 時間的國際單位制（SI）單位是「秒」。它根據銫-133 原子輻射的頻率，利用原子鐘進行精確定義。因此，雖然我們沒有時間的公制系統（如公里或公斤），但其基本單位已經是國際單位制的一部分。我們沒有為分鐘或小時設置公制前綴，因為科學和工程計算已將秒作為基本單位，所以沒有必要。

4. 它沒有壞掉： 目前的系統完全能夠滿足我們所有的需求。從一個簡單的廚房計時器到最複雜的火箭發射，我們的 60 秒分鐘和 24 小時一天都非常精確且廣為人知。改變它並不能解決任何實際問題。

5. 天文基礎： 我們的一天是以地球的自轉為基礎，而一年是以其繞太陽公轉為基礎。雖然這些都不是完美的 24 小時週期，但它們是我們存在的基本依據。一個公制系統將會強制性地任意且令人困惑地劃分一天，使我們的時鐘與太陽脫節。

6. 巨大的成本和混亂： 想像一下更換世界上每一個時鐘。數字手錶、機械鐘、電腦系統，甚至我們的語言都必須改變。這將是一場經濟和物流的惡夢，並造成一段前所未有的全球混亂時期。

7. 有趣的原因一： 想像一下，你想說「五點半」。在一個公制系統中，你可能必須說「5.25 百分鐘」或「5.50 公時」。這聽起來一點也不順口！ 🤪

8. 有趣的原因二： 在新系統下，你將不再能「遲到得很時尚」。你只會「落後 1.789 百分之一公時」，這聽起來一點也不酷。 😜

---

12 個標籤

1. 歷史惰性

2. 60 的可除盡性

3. SI 單位是「秒」

4. 無實際益處

5. 天文基礎

6. 全球混亂

7. 經濟成本

8. 文化融合

9. 十進制不便

10. 「沒壞就別修」

11. 有趣的語言

12. 時尚地遲到

The Time Problem: Why We Don't Use a Metric System for Time

 

The Time Problem: Why We Don't Use a Metric System for Time

We don't use a metric system for time because our current timekeeping, based on 60 seconds, 60 minutes, and 24 hours, is deeply ingrained in our culture and technology.¹ Changing it would be incredibly disruptive and offer very few practical benefits. Unlike length or weight, where a base-10 system provides straightforward scaling (e.g., 1000 grams in a kilogram), a base-10 system for time would break all our clocks, calendars, and ingrained habits.

---

All the Reasons Why We Don't Change Time

Here are the key reasons why we stick to the old system:

1. Historical and Cultural Inertia: Our current system is ancient, dating back to the Sumerians and Babylonians who used a base-60 counting system. This system, with 12 and 60 as key numbers, is found throughout history and is part of our shared human experience.

2. Divisibility: The number 60 is a highly composite number.² This means it can be divided evenly by many other numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60).³ This is incredibly useful for splitting time into equal parts, like half-hours or quarter-hours. This makes our current system more flexible for everyday use than a base-10 system, which is only divisible by 2 and 5.

3. The SI System is Already In Use: The SI unit of time is the second.⁴ It's defined precisely using atomic clocks, based on the radiation of a cesium-133 atom.⁵ So, while we don't have a metric system (like kilometers or kilograms) for time, the fundamental unit is already part of the SI system. We just don't have metric prefixes for minutes or hours because they are not necessary for scientific and engineering calculations which already use seconds as the base unit.

4. It's Not Broken: The current system works perfectly well for all our needs. From a simple kitchen timer to the most complex rocket launch, our 60-second minute and 24-hour day are perfectly precise and widely understood. There's no practical problem that a change would solve.

5. The Astronomical Basis: Our day is based on the Earth's rotation, and our year on its orbit around the sun. While these aren't perfect 24-hour cycles, they are fundamental to our existence. A metric system would force a completely arbitrary and confusing division of the day, disconnecting our clocks from the sun.

6. Massive Cost and Chaos: Imagine trying to replace every single clock in the world. Digital watches, mechanical clocks, computer systems, and even our language would have to be changed. It would be an economic and logistical nightmare, causing a period of unprecedented global chaos.

7. Funny Reason #1: Imagine asking for "half past 5." In a metric system, you'd have to say "5.25 hundred-minutes" or "5.50-metric hours." It just doesn't roll off the tongue! 🤪

8. Funny Reason #2: Under a new system, you'd never be "fashionably late" again. You'd just be "1.789 centi-hours" behind schedule, which sounds way less cool. 😜

英國能源危機的積極應對方案

 

重新校準激勵：英國能源危機的積極應對方案

英國的住房與能源危機，其根源在於低效的建築存量。這不僅需要改變住房策略，還需要從根本上改變能源公司的商業模式。雖然建造現代化、節能住宅是一個長遠目標，但當務之急是解決現有的低效問題。一個重要的障礙是能源供應商目前的收入模式，這與節約能源的目標直接衝突。本文主張改變衡量和補償能源公司的方式，提出一種將其盈利與減少能源消耗而非增加其消耗量掛鉤的制度。

---

現行模式的缺陷

目前，能源公司透過銷售瓦斯和電力單位（以千瓦時，或kWh為單位）來產生收入和利潤。他們的客戶消耗的能源越多，他們的銷售額就越高，利潤也隨之增加。這為公司積極推廣或投資於能源效率措施（如家庭隔熱升級、安裝智慧電表或更高效的暖氣系統）創造了一個巨大的阻力。

儘管一些公司可能參與政府規定的效率計畫，但他們的核心商業利益仍然與能源消耗掛鉤。這種內在的利益衝突意味著，即使有良好的意圖，這個系統的設計也旨在延續它聲稱要解決的問題：高能源使用、高賬單和高碳排放。政府為補貼賬單和資助效率計畫所做的努力，只是在治療症狀，而不是解決這種市場失靈的根本原因。

---

一項提案：「效率即服務」模式

為了重新校準激勵，我們必須將能源公司成功的衡量標準從銷售單位轉變為節約單位。政府應引入一個監管框架，允許並鼓勵能源供應商從其客戶的能源節約中獲利。

這可以通過以下方式實現：

1. 設定基線：對於每個家庭或企業，根據歷史數據建立一個能源消耗基線。這個基線將作為衡量效率提升的起點。

2. 基於績效的補償：能源公司將獲得其供應能源的保證利潤，但他們也將因客戶在基線之下節約的每一單位能源而獲得補償。例如，如果一個家庭的年平均消耗量為10,000 kWh，而能源公司幫助他們將其降至8,000 kWh，該公司將為節約的2,000 kWh獲得預定的付款。

3. 第三方驗證：獨立審計師將驗證節約情況，以防止欺詐並確保報告準確。這將保證能源公司是真正在幫助客戶節約能源。

這個模式將能源公司從單純的商品銷售者轉變為能源服務夥伴。他們的財務成功將直接取決於他們幫助客戶提高房屋效率的能力。這將激勵他們投資於房屋改造、提供專家建議並在節能技術上進行創新。

重新校準激勵的好處

這項提案為解決危機提供了一條可行且合理的道路。它對所有各方都有利：

• 對於消費者：更低的能源賬單和更舒適的家居，且無需獨自應對複雜的政府補助計畫。

• 對於能源公司：一個穩定且可預測的收入來源，較不易受到市場波動的影響。他們可以成為能源轉型中真正的夥伴。

• 對於英國政府：顯著減少對昂貴賬單補貼的需求，朝著淨零排放邁出重要一步，並透過減少進口依賴來增強能源安全。

通過改變遊戲規則，我們可以將能源危機從一個問題轉變為一個機遇，將市場上最大的參與者變成實現可持續未來的最強大盟友。

---

A Proactive Approach to the UK's Energy Crisis

 

Realigning Incentives: A Proactive Approach to the UK's Energy Crisis

The UK's housing and energy crisis, rooted in its inefficient building stock, requires not only a shift in housing strategy but also a fundamental change in the business model of energy companies. While building modern, energy-efficient homes is a long-term goal, immediate action is needed to tackle the existing inefficiency. A significant barrier to this is the current revenue model of energy suppliers, which directly conflicts with the goals of energy conservation. This paper argues for a change in how energy companies are measured and compensated, proposing a system where their profitability is linked to reducing energy consumption, not increasing it.

---

The Flaw in the Current Model

Currently, energy companies generate revenue and profit by selling units of gas and electricity (measured in kilowatt-hours, or kWh). The more energy their customers consume, the higher their sales and, consequently, their profits. This creates a powerful disincentive for companies to actively promote or invest in energy efficiency measures, such as home insulation upgrades, smart meter installations, or more efficient heating systems.

While some companies may participate in government-mandated efficiency schemes, their core business interest remains tied to consumption. This inherent conflict of interest means that even with good intentions, the system is designed to perpetuate the very problem it claims to solve: high energy use, high bills, and high carbon emissions. The government's efforts to subsidize bills and fund efficiency programs are merely treating the symptoms, not the underlying cause of this market failure.

---

A Proposal: The "Efficiency-as-a-Service" Model

To realign incentives, we must change the metric of success for energy companies from units sold to units saved. The government should introduce a regulatory framework that allows and encourages energy suppliers to profit from their customers' energy reductions.

This can be achieved by:

1. Setting a Baseline: For each household or business, a baseline of energy consumption would be established based on historical data. This baseline would serve as the starting point for measuring efficiency gains.

2. Performance-Based Compensation: Energy companies would be granted a guaranteed profit margin on the energy they supply, but they would also be compensated for every unit of energy their customers save below the baseline. For example, if a home's average consumption is 10,000 kWh per year and the energy company helps them reduce it to 8,000 kWh, the company would receive a pre-determined payment for the 2,000 kWh saved.

3. Third-Party Verification: Independent auditors would verify the reductions to prevent fraud and ensure accurate reporting. This would guarantee that energy companies are genuinely helping their customers save energy.

This model transforms energy companies from simple commodity sellers into energy service partners.² Their financial success would directly depend on their ability to help customers make homes more efficient. This would incentivize them to invest in home retrofits, provide expert advice, and innovate in energy-saving technologies.

The Benefits of Realigned Incentives

This proposal offers a workable and reasonable path to solving the crisis. It benefits all parties:

• For Consumers: Lower energy bills and more comfortable homes, without having to navigate complex government grant schemes on their own.

• For Energy Companies: A stable and predictable revenue stream that is less vulnerable to market volatility. They can become true partners in the energy transition.

• For the UK Government: A significant reduction in the need for costly bill subsidies, a major step toward net-zero emissions, and enhanced energy security through reduced import dependency.

By changing the rules of the game, we can transform the energy crisis from a problem to an opportunity, turning the biggest players in the market into the most powerful allies for a sustainable future.

英國老舊房屋與能源困境

 

危機的根源：英國老舊房屋與能源困境

英國正應對一場涵蓋住房短缺、能源費用飆升以及實現淨零排放目標等錯綜複雜的危機。儘管這些問題看似各自獨立，但其根源卻是相互關聯的：即英國老舊且隔熱性能差的房屋存量。相當一部分的英國住宅，尤其是那些建於1980年以前的，能源效率極低，導致大量的熱量散失、高昂的公用事業費用，以及對進口能源的依賴。國家不願放棄其傳統的、通常具有美學價值的住宅，轉而選擇現代、高效的替代品，這使危機更加惡化。

---

低效率的歷史

英國的房屋市場因其年代久遠而聞名。超過40%的房屋建於1944年之前，而驚人的70%則建於1980年之前。儘管外觀迷人，這些老舊房屋的建造並未達到現代隔熱標準。它們通常採用單層玻璃窗、薄牆且缺乏適當的密封，使其像個熱能篩子。這種低效率迫使家庭消耗更多的能源——主要是天然氣供暖——以維持舒適的溫度。隔熱差與高能源消耗之間的直接關聯，是生活成本危機的核心驅動力。

經濟與環境的後果

能源低效率帶來的後果是嚴重且廣泛的。在家庭層面，許多家庭面臨著令人難以承受的能源賬單，導致許多人陷入燃料貧困。而政府為了緩解這些成本，被迫提供數十億英鎊的補貼和支援計畫，這給公共財政帶來了沉重負擔。[一張顯示典型英國房屋熱量損失的圖表]

在國家層面，英國對進口天然氣和石油的依賴使其容易受到國際能源市場波動的影響，最近的價格飆升就證明了這一點。這種依賴不僅消耗國家經濟，也損害能源安全。此外，住宅供暖是碳排放的主要來源。房屋能源性能不佳直接阻礙了英國到2050年實現淨零排放的法定承諾。

解決方案：轉向現代住宅

解決這場危機的方案在於根本性地改變房屋策略。英國應該優先在市中心建設高密度、高能源效率的塔樓，而不是保留低效的老舊住宅。這些現代建築可以設計成具有優越的隔熱性能、雙層或三層玻璃窗，並整合再生能源系統（如太陽能板和熱泵），從而大幅減少其能源足跡。

在市中心向上建設將在更小的土地面積上創造數以千計的新住宅，從而解決住房短缺問題。這也將減少通勤需求，因為居民將更接近工作地點，進一步減少排放。這種轉變所帶來的能源節約將能緩解家庭的財政壓力，減少政府的補貼支出，並降低對能源進口的依賴。儘管傳統住宅的美學和文化價值無可否認，但維護它們所付出的經濟和環境成本已不再可持續。

---

UK's Old Housing Stock and the Energy Conundrum

 

The Root of a Crisis: UK's Old Housing Stock and the Energy Conundrum

The United Kingdom is grappling with a multi-faceted crisis encompassing housing shortages, exorbitant energy costs, and an urgent need to meet net-zero emissions targets. While these issues may seem distinct, their root cause is interconnected: the nation's aging and poorly insulated housing stock. A significant percentage of UK homes, particularly those built before 1980, are energy inefficient, leading to massive heat loss, high utility bills, and a dependency on foreign energy imports. The country's reluctance to abandon its traditional, often aesthetically cherished, housing for modern, efficient alternatives exacerbates this crisis.

---

A History of Inefficiency

The UK's housing market is defined by its age. Over 40% of the homes were built before 1944, and a staggering 70% were constructed before 1980. While charming in appearance, these older homes were built without modern insulation standards. They feature single-pane windows, thin walls, and a lack of proper sealing, making them a thermal sieve. This inefficiency forces households to consume significantly more energy—primarily natural gas for heating—to maintain a comfortable temperature. This direct link between poor insulation and high energy consumption is a core driver of the cost-of-living crisis.

The Economic and Environmental Fallout

The consequences of this energy inefficiency are severe and widespread. At the household level, families face crippling energy bills, pushing many into fuel poverty. The government, in turn, is forced to provide billions of pounds in subsidies and support programs to mitigate these costs, adding a significant burden to public finances.

On a national scale, the UK's dependence on imported natural gas and oil leaves it vulnerable to volatile international energy markets, as evidenced by the recent price spikes. This dependency not only drains the national economy but also undermines energy security. Furthermore, residential heating is a major source of carbon emissions. The poor energy performance of the housing stock directly obstructs the UK's legally binding commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Solution: A Shift to Modern Housing

The solution to this crisis lies in a fundamental change in housing strategy. Instead of preserving inefficient older homes, the UK should prioritize the construction of high-density, energy-efficient tower blocks in urban centers. These modern buildings can be designed with superior insulation, double or triple-glazed windows, and integrated renewable energy systems (like solar panels and heat pumps), drastically reducing their energy footprint.

Building upwards in city centers would address the housing shortage by creating thousands of new homes on a smaller land area. It would also reduce the need for commuting, as residents would be closer to workplaces, further cutting down on emissions. The energy savings from such a shift would alleviate household financial strain, reduce the government's subsidy expenditure, and decrease reliance on energy imports. While the aesthetic and cultural value of traditional homes is undeniable, the economic and environmental costs of maintaining them are no longer sustainable.

---