4 ms·

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.