Ending Life Humanely

I read this article on Letting Go.  It's a very long article, but worth the read.  I believe this is starting to address one of the areas of our society that we have just not been able to address.    The author is a doctor who is struggling with the conflict between trying everything you can for a terminally ill patient no matter the cost, and letting that patient go so they can enjoy the last days of their life rather than be tied up to machines or be worsened by treatments.  It's a hard topic and I think the author does a good job of presenting both sides of the issue.  I think the take away from the story is: "What are your end of life scenarios?"

The more we think about our end-of-life scenarios now, the better chance we have of making a good decision once we're in that situation.  Are you willing to suffer for a week for a 5% chance at living 2 years longer?  Are you willing to suffer for a month for a 1% chance at living 10 years longer?  What is your break even point?  What are the things that you want to live for?  Would you rather spend 1 more week comfortably with your family, or fight to the bitter end hoping for a miracle?  These are hard questions.

I believe that in an advanced society, we would not find it so hard to let go of the dying.  It's a certain shortfall of who we are.  Whether this is because of religion or an evolutionary need to preserve our own, our tendencies are misguided and we should work on this.  Figure it out for yourself.  Talk to your family.  Make a small step toward improving your end-of-life scenarios.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Opinions on Euthanasia (socyberty.com)
• Panel to discuss end-of-life issues (bendbulletin.com)
• 6 Ways to Cope with an Illness (lifescript.com)
• Main Points About Death and Dying (socyberty.com)

The problem with the UN

Image via Wikipedia

I know, just one?  Well, this is the most important one.

What purpose does the UN serve?  Well, it SHOULD be able to enforce treaties, peace, prevent attacks on smaller nations.  It has not been successful with this.  Why?  Problem is that the UN has no power.  Even if it decides a country is our of compliance, or flat out defying UN rules, the UN will not do anything, especially if that country declares that any sanctions will be considered an act of war.  Not that sanctions ever help anyway.  They hurt the people and usually give the rebellious leaders added resolve.  It's not a good system.

We need a UN with teeth.  First, I'll take this to the extreme.  What if the UN had a host of Nuclear bombs and every time a country did not follow UN resolutions, that country's capital was bombed with a nuclear bomb with the intent on destroying that country's leadership.  I can think of a few problems that probably wouldn't have happened.  Once the UN drops one bomb, I can't imagine there would be a lot of countries causing problems.  We would still have gorilla type problems, but that's not what I'm addressing here.  So, once the UN establishes itself as having some teeth, then countries should feel more confident in reducing their armies, weapons, and other wasted resources so they can focus on growth, human rights, and anything else they might spend $800 billion dollars on annually.  Ok, so that's the figure for the whole world, but still, it's a lot of money.

So, it seems like the end goal could be beneficial, but we can't bring ourselves to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people for the sake of world peace.  Would it be worth it, or possible if it was just one bomb and it gave us world peace forever?  Still a questionable thought and almost impossible to do.  I get that.  So lets consider an alternative.

Alternative:  Are nuclear weapons so completely unacceptable that it's just not a reasonable policy?  Maybe.  So instead, put into place a policy of complete destruction of central political establishment, central political symbols, and some high end residencies.  The ideal situation would be to kill the leadership, but this comes close to the goals of using a Nuclear bomb.  I think especially, the idea of going after high end residencies is especially interesting as money buys influence no matter where you live and if you give enough of the rich a reason to put pressure on the government to change, then you may just get peace.

Related articles by Zemanta

• On The Edge of Nuclear War (socyberty.com)
• Mapping Nuclear Bomb Explosions (neatorama.com)
• Iran leader says sanctions will not slow atom work (reuters.com)
• Do you think that we could ever get rid of nuclear bombs? (greenanswers.com)

Why isn't the post office a business?

Image via Wikipedia

I just don't understand government organizations that can't be run by businesses.  There are many departments or organizations within government that actually take in money to provide a service.  The DMV for example as well as the post office.  News is out now that the US Post Office is requesting a 23% increase in the price of stamps.  http://www.adafruit.com/blog/2010/07/07/standard-mail-prices-for-parcels-to-increase-23/

The problem here is that the post office is not improving it's services, should be making money off of us, and still continues to lose money and charge unreasonable rates to deliver mail.

I think it's about time there be a rival created for the USPS.  One of the large freight companies should start delivering mail door to door like a business would and see if it can't improve on how the USPS operates.  Here is a short list of some of the improvements I think could be made:
- Create an opt-in system for junk mail.
       -  Does the post office make extra money by delivering junk?  How much time would be saved if there was no junk mail?  What if companies had to pay the recipients in order to send mail to them?
       -  Provide ways for consumers to provide information so that junk mail could be targeted better.  This would increase the value to the advertisers as well as provide junk mail that may actually be interesting to the recipient.
- Establish accounts associated with sender's addresses.  Instead of stamping mail, just charge each account for the mail that is delivered from that address.
- Create different classes of mail delivery.  Have standard mail delivery every other day and have urgent or 1st class delivery every day for a higher charge.
- Instead of charging people for P.O.Boxes, make it cheaper for people to receive mail at a main postal office.  Saves on delivery time and expenses and may be more convenient for some people.
- Offer a fax to mail service.  Fax the post office, or bring it in, and we'll deliver a physical printout of your fax to the address specified.

I bet a serious competitor to the USPS could not only make money, but they could probably improve on service, reduce junk mail, and reduce prices for end consumers.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Post office plans to announce new rate increase (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• How Postal Rate Hikes Foretell America's Future (money.usnews.com)
• Forty-Six Cents for a Stamp? (abcnews.go.com)