Changing the Clocks

I've just tried a new way to deal with the changing of the clocks. Instead of a single adjustment of an hour, I decided to try two adjustments of half an hour each.

Last night I set my alarm for 7:30 instead of the usual 8 - I decided not to change clocks till this morning. I didn't actually need the alarm as I was awake before 7:30 GMT, so I rose as scheduled.

Having altered clocks by an hour, I've returned the alarm to its usual 8, and wait to see how I feel tomorrow.

Changing the clocks is distinctly odd. It is understandable that people should want to get up earlier when the mornings are lighter, but that could be achieved just be getting up earlier.

Do we need different times for different parts of the world ? One international time would suffice, provided we could overcome a strange superstition, that the various events of our daily routine should each be linked with a certain range of numbers.

People are used to associate getting up with a number between 6 and 9, starting work with a number between 8 and 9:30, going to bed with a number between 10 and 12. Those associations would be broken if we had a single world time. I expect that would be considered a great problem. If it is a problem, that is only because people who do not understand numbers allow their lives to be ruled by them.

Even people usually at home with numbers are sometimes defeated by times. The Economist once argued that Britain should adopt Eastern European time, giving two reasons. First it would be easier for people in  Britain to make phone calls to their opposite numbers in other countries if all worked the same hours, and second, that road accidents would be reduced if people finished work in daylight.

The first reason would require people to align their activities with their clocks, but the second would require people to align them with the hours of  daylight, so that people in Eastern Europe would finish work earlier than those further West.

It is an amusing truth of logic that a contradiction implies anything. (See Chapter 2 of my notes on Philosophy) As it had mutually contradictory premises the Economist's argument was indeed valid, but was still useless for establishing its conclusion.