3 ms·
Having lived on the east coast (in cities) my whole life until recently, seeing the stars was a notably rare occasion. Even just one or two was asking too much
by existencebox 12y ago
Having lived on the east coast (in cities) my whole life until recently, seeing the stars was a notably rare occasion. Even just one or two was asking too much on most nights, the sky just sort of glows an off-orange color near the horizon, becoming more visible as you are nearer to light sources.
I for one would love to see far far less light pollution, but I don't think that will happen until technology enables us to make doing * in the dark as safe/easy as doing it in the light.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- DanBC 12y agoThere's a bunch of light going into the sky for no reason at all - pure waste. Better reflectors and lighting design would cut that down dramatically. Then there's a bunch of light going into the sky for sub-optimal reasons. Lighting up the exterior of buildings at night time is something that should be more expensive. See, for one example, the San Diego temple which is a bright white building with an insane amount of exterior night time lighting for very little reason. (You have to see it in person - it's a particarly egrarious waste of energy) http://sealofmelchizedek.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/San-Diego-LDS-Temple-designed-with-Seal-of-Melchizedek-Symbol-Night-1-Crop.jpg http://sealofmelchizedek.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/San-...
- existencebox 12y agoI agree with both of your points. That being said, there's also the matter of the less low-hanging-fruit, street lighting for instance. I know in densely trafficked areas the street lighting is sufficient to completely obfuscate the sky, up to a few tens of miles away. Perhaps we can improve how we do said lighting but I see a lot of resistance in scaling it down until as I said, our capabilities are improved.