Abolish Time Zones
This post is more than three years old. While I like my old posts enough to keep them around, I can't guarantee that everything works properly. Links, images, and other sundry items may be broken. Browse at your own peril! Or, at least, don't complain.
Posted on 01/17/2010 by Jim
Have you ever told someone you would call at ten o'clock, only to realize they thought you meant ten o'clock their time instead of your time? I mean, it's all good, except you called them at two o'clock in the morning. No big deal.
I have for some time now maintained that we should abolish time zones. When I suggest this I invariably get a response as such: "That'd just be silly, James."
But stop for a moment and consider if the entire world was all a single time zone. I assert that it would be a simpler place.
What Time Shall I Call At?
Consider the benefits of a single time zone:
- There would never be any mix up about when to call people. If you said that you would call at six o'clock, it would always mean six o'clock.
- You wouldn't need to change your watch time when you traveled.
- Computers wouldn't have to set the time zone upon first turning on. Also, computers wouldn't continually be getting into the wrong time zone with daylight savings changes, and posted times on the Internet would always coincide.
- Speaking of daylight savings time, don't even get me started on it. This would deal with that problem once and for all.
- The entire world would celebrate the New Year at the exact same time. No more Aussies feeling smug because they get to be in the next year before us.
- International business would have less trouble staying coordinated. Computers, of course, don't have any problems staying coordinated. You know why? Because they all run on the same time zone—UTC. But this would be good for the businessmen.
Duel at High Noon
The first question many people ask is what would happen to noon and midnight. Nothing, really. They would fall into the category of dawn and dusk. When you consider "dawn" you don't think about a specific time, say six o'clock in the morning. Instead, you think about the point in time when the sun is rising. Same with dusk. Midnight would cease to be twelve o'clock at night and would become "the middle point of the night." Noon would become "half way through the day" or when the sun is directly overhead.
In individual cities, a particular time might become connected with noon or midnight. If, for example, the sun was always directly overhead at five o'clock p.m.1 then "noon" would now be synonymous with "five" in that city.
Some might say that this adds a layer of confusion, rather than removing one. But if you currently say "I'll call you at noon" it isn't any better. All you're really saying is "I'll call you at twelve." It doesn't actually clear up any time zone problems. Twelve might still be two, their time.
The worst that could happen is that two people in the same city—perhaps one is from out of town—agree to meet at noon but have different conceptions of when noon is. I believe, however, that a commonly defined value would quickly emerge or people would soon learn to use precise numbers for scheduling.
What Would We Lose?
In addition to the possible confusion over meeting at noon or midnight mentioned above:
- The cultural attachment we have to the o'clock hours. The sun rises at six, coffee break is at ten, and work ends at five. Such a drastic switch would mean giving up these familiarities. Work would end at five, seven, eleven, or two, depending on where you were. The worst part of this might actually concern literature and the arts. Common phrases like "it's five o'clock somewhere" would eventually cease to have anything but historical meaning.
- Conversion difficulties. Just like switching to the metric system (something I wholeheartedly support), there would be a cost involved to switch. Employee manuals, street signs, and many other things would need to be changed.
- In addition to the conversion difficulties, a few printed materials would need to become localized. Imagine a restaurant change that has "Breakfast at Eight" signs. These would now only be applicable for a specific location; other locations would need different signs.
- Moving permanently between locations would require greater adjustment. The work hour shift might be "nine to five" one location, but "twelve to eight" another. This would require acclimatization. (Short travel, on the other hand, would become easier, as calculating times would not be an issue.)
Going the Way of the Imperial System
Time zones came into regular use with the advent of the train systems of the nineteenth century. At the time they made sense, as there was no easy means of keeping universal time. That is no longer the case, however, and time zones may now cause as much trouble as they solve.
Sadly, I doubt my idea will ever be implemented. In fact, that may actually be a good thing; it's entirely possible that the benefits of switching would not make up for the costs. I don't pretend to be able to clearly calculate either. But it is, at least, an interesting thought experiment.
1. Incidentally, the a.m./p.m. method of marking time would become an anachronism. As there would no longer be a chronological meridian, a.m./p.m. would serve simply to indicate whether one was in the first 12 hours of the global day, or the second 12 hours. The actual half way point through a day would vary continuously by location. On the other hand, if we were going to do something as drastic as abolish time zones, we could also move to 24 hour time with little ill effect.