4 ms·

Was hoping to read why the falling cost of light matters in modern times.

function_seven 10y ago
I take it as an example that can apply to many other areas of life and technology. Adjusted for inflation, I earn the same or less than my parents did when they were my age. (This is touted as the failure of the American Dream). Yet my life is considerably less of a hassle then theirs was. While the value of a dollar is less than it was then, I am able to do things that were simply impossible in 1970. Things I don’t worry about, that they did: * Cost of long distance phone calls (VoIP) * Cost of mailing a letter (E-mail) * Smog (Catalytic converter) * Missing a TV show (DVR, Netflix) * Replacing light bulbs (LEDs) * Hepatitis C (That Gilead drug) * Depositing checks at the bank (No more checks, or photo deposit) * Developing film (Digital Camera) All of these are thanks to advancing technology. Each one on its own may be a small improvement, but across all sections of our daily life, they free up time to be spent in other ways. Some people see this as a long-term hazard to society. I’m not sure I disagree; I see their point. But if that freed-up time is conscientiously reallocated, then the upper limit on any one person’s potential has been raised.
- VLM 10y ago
  The optimist glass is full of "nice to have" other than the Hep-C pharma which is the only "must have". The pessimist glass is full of "must have" like pay kids college, pay for health care, purchase roof over head, purchase car or alternative transport. And those trends are not looking good. This is aside from negative technologies. Military drones. Mass surveillance. Social media. Fake news. Corn syrup. Industrialized heavily processed food in general. And of course technologies that are on the bubble. The net result of fast food drive thru as a technology is likely negative, although superficially what could possibly go wrong with food that's fast? I've noticed over decades in the field that providing more automation to businesses sometimes results in more complicated systems rather than more productive systems. Probably the small number of failures being more memorable than the larger number of successes... An ever more complicated culture is not necessarily better, but it is certainly more brittle and prone to collapse.
fencepost 10y ago
Some of it's not how much it matters in modern times but that without that decline in cost it wouldn't BE modern times. Even now there are large chunks of the world where LEDs are making a huge difference because their lower cost means it's possible to power them with self-contained solar cells where it'd be a challenge to power even an incandescent nightlight without expensive fuel or a generator. For those who like podcasts, Planet Money also covered this a few years ago: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/25/306862378/episode-534-the-history-of-light http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/25/306862378/episo...
- dankohn1 10y ago
  It's a superb podcast. Made a huge impact on my 10 year old.
ddebernardy 10y ago
Intriguingly, it probably hasn't fallen that much in terms of total energy spend. At every step of the way on the path to increasing efficiency, we didn't focus on saving; rather, we've increased the amount of light in public and private spaces. Where in the past a dimly lit room or alley might have been fine, you'd use intense light sources nowadays.
- VLM 10y ago
  I had fifteen 60 watt bulbs in my basement lab/workshop on tracks and that's 900 watts. And in my living room I had two three hundred watt torchaire style halogen bulbs, that's 600 watts. I don't think my house was unusually bright. My LED replacements are actually brighter in terms of lumens which is very nice, but only recently could I theoretically afford 1500 watts of LEDs. I mean there was an early adopter time not long ago when LED bulbs were like $30/watt. I think 1500 watts of modern LEDs would be quite the searchlight. An eighth of a million lumens seems within reach for one fifteen amp AC power cable. That's about a square meter of bright noontime sunlight, which isn't so bad.

I take it as an example that can apply to many other areas of life and technology. Adjusted for inflation, I earn the same or less than my parents did when they were my age. (This is touted as the failure of the American Dream). Yet my life is considerably less of a hassle then theirs was. While the value of a dollar is less than it was then, I am able to do things that were simply impossible in 1970. Things I don’t worry about, that they did: * Cost of long distance phone calls (VoIP) * Cost of mailing a letter (E-mail) * Smog (Catalytic converter) * Missing a TV show (DVR, Netflix) * Replacing light bulbs (LEDs) * Hepatitis C (That Gilead drug) * Depositing checks at the bank (No more checks, or photo deposit) * Developing film (Digital Camera) All of these are thanks to advancing technology. Each one on its own may be a small improvement, but across all sections of our daily life, they free up time to be spent in other ways. Some people see this as a long-term hazard to society. I’m not sure I disagree; I see their point. But if that freed-up time is conscientiously reallocated, then the upper limit on any one person’s potential has been raised.

VLM 10y ago
The optimist glass is full of "nice to have" other than the Hep-C pharma which is the only "must have". The pessimist glass is full of "must have" like pay kids college, pay for health care, purchase roof over head, purchase car or alternative transport. And those trends are not looking good. This is aside from negative technologies. Military drones. Mass surveillance. Social media. Fake news. Corn syrup. Industrialized heavily processed food in general. And of course technologies that are on the bubble. The net result of fast food drive thru as a technology is likely negative, although superficially what could possibly go wrong with food that's fast? I've noticed over decades in the field that providing more automation to businesses sometimes results in more complicated systems rather than more productive systems. Probably the small number of failures being more memorable than the larger number of successes... An ever more complicated culture is not necessarily better, but it is certainly more brittle and prone to collapse.

fencepost 10y ago

Some of it's not how much it matters in modern times but that without that decline in cost it wouldn't BE modern times. Even now there are large chunks of the world where LEDs are making a huge difference because their lower cost means it's possible to power them with self-contained solar cells where it'd be a challenge to power even an incandescent nightlight without expensive fuel or a generator. For those who like podcasts, Planet Money also covered this a few years ago: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/25/306862378/episode-534-the-history-of-light http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/25/306862378/episo...

dankohn1 10y ago
It's a superb podcast. Made a huge impact on my 10 year old.

ddebernardy 10y ago

Intriguingly, it probably hasn't fallen that much in terms of total energy spend. At every step of the way on the path to increasing efficiency, we didn't focus on saving; rather, we've increased the amount of light in public and private spaces. Where in the past a dimly lit room or alley might have been fine, you'd use intense light sources nowadays.

VLM 10y ago
I had fifteen 60 watt bulbs in my basement lab/workshop on tracks and that's 900 watts. And in my living room I had two three hundred watt torchaire style halogen bulbs, that's 600 watts. I don't think my house was unusually bright. My LED replacements are actually brighter in terms of lumens which is very nice, but only recently could I theoretically afford 1500 watts of LEDs. I mean there was an early adopter time not long ago when LED bulbs were like $30/watt. I think 1500 watts of modern LEDs would be quite the searchlight. An eighth of a million lumens seems within reach for one fifteen amp AC power cable. That's about a square meter of bright noontime sunlight, which isn't so bad.