5 ms·

The idea of light "pollution" is insane to me. It's not pollution, it's human civilisation's evolution. I consider myself very lucky to be born and live during

The idea of light "pollution" is insane to me. It's not pollution, it's human civilisation's evolution. I consider myself very lucky to be born and live during these disastrous times when we pollute the sky with light.

leviathant 4y ago
I spent a couple of years living in a paper mill town. When the wind blew right, it smelled like humid vegetarian farts. Certain locals brushed that off: "Smells like money to me." I'm glad I don't live there anymore.
ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
By most metrics compared to the past you're very lucky to be living in a time where we pollute the air with toxic fumes and the sea with plastic, they're both evidence of our civilizations' evolution as well as causally linked with tremendous progress.
- krzyk 4y ago
  Comparing light to pollution is a big stretch. If one doesn't want light, there is no issue with living in a forest away from cities and civilization.
  - _0mta 4y ago
    The “if <people> don’t like <x>, they can move” template has never been very convincing, and I think in this case even less so, since it’s about citizens seeking what they believe is an objective improvement for all. The point of light pollution advocacy isn’t to make cities worse; it’s to make them better. Light can be used in a thoughtful manner that promotes a healthy sleep cycle, that provides aesthetic improvements for the city and the sky, that conserves energy, and doesn’t negatively affect the wide variety of plants and animals that depend on light to determine the season, or navigate by the stars or moon.
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
    That same logic works for toxic fumes and plastic. The effects of 400ppm of CO2 are negligible on an individual basis, you get exposed to much worse in a closed room. There are also regions of the world which will be spared by global warming I'm sure, if one is fine removing themselves from civilization.
MontyCarloHall 4y ago
I mostly agree. Comparing light pollution to air/water pollution is a huge stretch; photons are not comparable to soot, sulfur oxides, microplastics, or mercury, to name a few. That said, some ecological arguments presented in the article are fairly compelling, although more research needs to be done on a) how much light pollution actually is to blame and b) how disruptive to ecosystems the putative increase of bird deaths/disrupted turtle nesting/insect reproduction actually is. With respect to disrupted circadian rhythms, blackout curtains or sleeping blindfolds work wonders. Though as other posters have pointed out, people living at extreme northern latitudes don’t seem to have any issues during the summer, when it never gets dark at night; indeed, it’s not getting enough light during the winter that causes problems (seasonal affective disorder/vitamin D deficiencies). Many animals living at those latitudes seem to have adapted fine; the same bird species living in Sweden can also be found much further south. I’ve never understood the emotional argument for dark skies. I’ve seen the Milky Way with my naked eye at night several times, and it was like visiting the Grand Canyon—extremely impressive and worth seeing, but not something that’s so essential to my emotional well-being that I need to see it every night, therefore necessitating drastic measures to ensure everyone can see the Grand Canyon each day.
eCa 4y ago
A couple of hundred years ago, the unfiltered fumes from coal plants and factories were considered signs of human evolution. Maybe it’s the same with this type of pollution? A perhaps necessary step to something better. The evolution continues. The first time it really struck me was many years ago on a bike trip in eastern Germany. For various reasons I was biking late into the night, and was maybe 20k outside a major city, way out in the country side. I couldn’t see the city itself or any direct light from it, but the sky above it was lit up like a dome of light.
spaetzleesser 4y ago
We can evolve while also avoiding harmful things. Environmental regulation has made life better for a lot of people and so would a reduction in light pollution.
- krzyk 4y ago
  I think that sound pollution is more harmful. But it is just me, I like seeing that there is a life in the city at night. I can cover my windows if it bugs me, but I insulating my home more against loud sounds is quite hard and much more costly.
  - nullc 4y ago
    You can block out light, but you can't regain the sky that way. Sound attenuates much faster. If you live in the SF bay area and want to spend some time without sound pollution you can do so easily. Many of our open space preserves are noted for their level of quiet. I chose where I live partially on the basis that it's extremely quiet. If you would like to experience an extremely dark sky, however, you'll have to drive several hours and much of the US can't even get to one in several hours.
    - krzyk 4y ago
      > You can block out light, but you can't regain the sky that way. This sounds like a luxury craving, not a health problem. I can't experience fresh pineapple where I live, should I force farmers to find a way to make it grow here?
nullc 4y ago
You're conflating the desirable effect with the unhelpful externality: that we engage in activities that benefit us vs that we also scatter light into the night sky that does us no good and only harms us. The former is something to be proud of, that latter is something to minimize. We can still engage in our civilization while minimizing the level that we light up the sky, for example by using fixtures that send light only where we need it and not UP where it does is no good, by not using light when it's not needed (e.g. motion triggered lights, lights that are only on when activities are underway), and by being thoughtful about the spectrum of the light (blue light is poison to night vision and if we used consistent monochromatic light like LPS lamps provided you could filter all of it out with glasses). Like many other kinds of polution the sources often follow a power law where a comparatively small number of sources provide a lot of the light. All the positives of our civilizations can be met without as much lighting up the sky. ... to achieve the minimal amount of sky lightning for our level of beneficial activity requires more civilization not less. Light polution also harms wildlife. It may be the least impactful of our pollution but it's pollution none the less.
_0mta 4y ago
In my experience most dark sky advocacy comes from the work of scientists who agree that artificial light is great, but it can be even better (for health, safety, environment, etc.) if you only use it when you need it, and you only point it where it needs to go. That’s basically the core of the argument. Hope I helped shed more light on the topic for you!

leviathant 4y ago

I spent a couple of years living in a paper mill town. When the wind blew right, it smelled like humid vegetarian farts. Certain locals brushed that off: "Smells like money to me." I'm glad I don't live there anymore.

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago

By most metrics compared to the past you're very lucky to be living in a time where we pollute the air with toxic fumes and the sea with plastic, they're both evidence of our civilizations' evolution as well as causally linked with tremendous progress.

krzyk 4y ago
Comparing light to pollution is a big stretch. If one doesn't want light, there is no issue with living in a forest away from cities and civilization.
- _0mta 4y ago
  The “if <people> don’t like <x>, they can move” template has never been very convincing, and I think in this case even less so, since it’s about citizens seeking what they believe is an objective improvement for all. The point of light pollution advocacy isn’t to make cities worse; it’s to make them better. Light can be used in a thoughtful manner that promotes a healthy sleep cycle, that provides aesthetic improvements for the city and the sky, that conserves energy, and doesn’t negatively affect the wide variety of plants and animals that depend on light to determine the season, or navigate by the stars or moon.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  That same logic works for toxic fumes and plastic. The effects of 400ppm of CO2 are negligible on an individual basis, you get exposed to much worse in a closed room. There are also regions of the world which will be spared by global warming I'm sure, if one is fine removing themselves from civilization.

MontyCarloHall 4y ago

I mostly agree. Comparing light pollution to air/water pollution is a huge stretch; photons are not comparable to soot, sulfur oxides, microplastics, or mercury, to name a few. That said, some ecological arguments presented in the article are fairly compelling, although more research needs to be done on a) how much light pollution actually is to blame and b) how disruptive to ecosystems the putative increase of bird deaths/disrupted turtle nesting/insect reproduction actually is. With respect to disrupted circadian rhythms, blackout curtains or sleeping blindfolds work wonders. Though as other posters have pointed out, people living at extreme northern latitudes don’t seem to have any issues during the summer, when it never gets dark at night; indeed, it’s not getting enough light during the winter that causes problems (seasonal affective disorder/vitamin D deficiencies). Many animals living at those latitudes seem to have adapted fine; the same bird species living in Sweden can also be found much further south. I’ve never understood the emotional argument for dark skies. I’ve seen the Milky Way with my naked eye at night several times, and it was like visiting the Grand Canyon—extremely impressive and worth seeing, but not something that’s so essential to my emotional well-being that I need to see it every night, therefore necessitating drastic measures to ensure everyone can see the Grand Canyon each day.

eCa 4y ago

A couple of hundred years ago, the unfiltered fumes from coal plants and factories were considered signs of human evolution. Maybe it’s the same with this type of pollution? A perhaps necessary step to something better. The evolution continues. The first time it really struck me was many years ago on a bike trip in eastern Germany. For various reasons I was biking late into the night, and was maybe 20k outside a major city, way out in the country side. I couldn’t see the city itself or any direct light from it, but the sky above it was lit up like a dome of light.

spaetzleesser 4y ago

We can evolve while also avoiding harmful things. Environmental regulation has made life better for a lot of people and so would a reduction in light pollution.

krzyk 4y ago
I think that sound pollution is more harmful. But it is just me, I like seeing that there is a life in the city at night. I can cover my windows if it bugs me, but I insulating my home more against loud sounds is quite hard and much more costly.
- nullc 4y ago
  You can block out light, but you can't regain the sky that way. Sound attenuates much faster. If you live in the SF bay area and want to spend some time without sound pollution you can do so easily. Many of our open space preserves are noted for their level of quiet. I chose where I live partially on the basis that it's extremely quiet. If you would like to experience an extremely dark sky, however, you'll have to drive several hours and much of the US can't even get to one in several hours.
  - krzyk 4y ago
    > You can block out light, but you can't regain the sky that way. This sounds like a luxury craving, not a health problem. I can't experience fresh pineapple where I live, should I force farmers to find a way to make it grow here?

nullc 4y ago

You're conflating the desirable effect with the unhelpful externality: that we engage in activities that benefit us vs that we also scatter light into the night sky that does us no good and only harms us. The former is something to be proud of, that latter is something to minimize. We can still engage in our civilization while minimizing the level that we light up the sky, for example by using fixtures that send light only where we need it and not UP where it does is no good, by not using light when it's not needed (e.g. motion triggered lights, lights that are only on when activities are underway), and by being thoughtful about the spectrum of the light (blue light is poison to night vision and if we used consistent monochromatic light like LPS lamps provided you could filter all of it out with glasses). Like many other kinds of polution the sources often follow a power law where a comparatively small number of sources provide a lot of the light. All the positives of our civilizations can be met without as much lighting up the sky. ... to achieve the minimal amount of sky lightning for our level of beneficial activity requires more civilization not less. Light polution also harms wildlife. It may be the least impactful of our pollution but it's pollution none the less.

_0mta 4y ago

In my experience most dark sky advocacy comes from the work of scientists who agree that artificial light is great, but it can be even better (for health, safety, environment, etc.) if you only use it when you need it, and you only point it where it needs to go. That’s basically the core of the argument. Hope I helped shed more light on the topic for you!