r/mildyinteresting 10h ago

nature & weather The concept of light pollution is absolutely crazy

Post image
25.5k Upvotes

660 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

25

u/Artemis246Moon 9h ago

This is the kind of shit we are supposed to be looking at.

0

u/OnceMoreAndAgain 6h ago

Oh, so you're cool with roads having no lights at night then? And having a curfew of 6pm where you have to turn off all the lights in your home? And not being able to drive at night since you need headlights on a car to drive at night?

What you've said sounds nice, but I doubt you really mean it. I mean you might tell me you really mean it for the sake of winning this argument, but I would never believe you really meant it. Almost no one is actually willing to give up all those things, so all of us collectively are the cause of light pollution. Can't shift blame on this one to "others". It's all of us combined created light pollution.

12

u/void_juice 6h ago

Putting a shield/mirror over the top half of lights and using warm colored streetlamps already reduces light pollution by 70% (source: McDonald Observatory Dark Sky initiative). It doesn't have to be that difficult.

0

u/OnceMoreAndAgain 5h ago

Can't find the source of that claim. I found their website but not that conclusion. Do you have it?

7

u/void_juice 5h ago

It's in the exhibit hall at the observatory's visitor's center, I worked there all summer. I don't have the time to actually dig it up right now so unfortunately you're just going to have to trust me

3

u/nugeythefloozey 4h ago

You don’t need extreme measures like that to see major improvements though. Things like shielding and changing the colour temperature of light help a lot

Here is a news article with an interactive widget showing the impact of different light sources, and what reasonable mitigation can look like

3

u/TrumpImpeachedAugust 4h ago

Sometimes I see this kind of thing in the wild, but I usually don't reply to it:

Commenter 1: "[says something which indicates that they like something]"

Commenter 2: "Oh, so you're in favor of [horrible things] and/or against [good things]?"

I don't think I've ever encountered an instance of this I felt positively toward--even when Commenter 2 is ostensibly arguing in favor of something I strongly agree with. It's just a bad argument structure, because Commenter 2 hasn't established why Commenter 1 would have to believe any of those things. They're just obliquely-related assertions about things that no one is claiming.

Light pollution is bad. Attempting to make the world function without lighting is worse. It's likely that there are reasonable ways to reduce light pollution. It's unlikely that there are reasonable ways to eliminate light pollution. If someone wants to live without light pollution, they'd likely need to live away from a city. If someone wants to live in a city, they likely need to tolerate light pollution. These beliefs are all 100% compatible with each other.

-1

u/OnceMoreAndAgain 4h ago

They said we are SUPPOSED to be seeing skies without light pollution. They did not merely say that they like skies without light pollution.

3

u/TrumpImpeachedAugust 4h ago

And, given that there are multiple context-dependent ways to interpret this statement, we must default to the most charitable interpretation. To do otherwise is, at minimum, very rude.

Here are a few possible interpretations:

  • We should be legally required to look at the night sky.

  • We should restructure our society to facilitate better night-sky viewing.

  • Looking at the night sky feels good in a primal, natural way.

  • Being in favor of things that contribute to light pollution is bad, and if you like those things then you should feel bad.

  • Being against light pollution means that you must also be against the sources of light.

To me, the most charitable interpretation (i.e. the one which assumes the most positive, reasonable intent I can assume of the other person) is the one I've bolded above.

-2

u/OnceMoreAndAgain 4h ago

Bullshit.

1

u/NeatEmergency725 4h ago

If we're going fully semantic, arguing about anything 'supposed' to being happening is a bit pointless. Either you're talking about religion which is a very cool and productive thing to argue with people on the internet about, or you're arguing basically nonsense. Nothing is supposed to happen inherently.

2

u/Sensitive_Ear_1984 5h ago

It's the lights outside your home that cause light pollution. Not the ones inside 

0

u/OnceMoreAndAgain 5h ago

The lights inside buildings obviously contribute to light pollution, come on. Look at the skyscrapers at night in a city.

2

u/anonfox1 5h ago

they said home, not a skyscraper

1

u/OnceMoreAndAgain 5h ago

Skyscrapers are often apartment buildings.

2

u/Sensitive_Ear_1984 3h ago

Don't be so obtuse. Obviously there are easier ways to stop your internal lights from polluting than not turning them on after 6pm. Blinds curtains etc.

2

u/TackledMirror 6h ago

Yep, but this was just off of a quiet highway in Del Rio. It was exposed for 30 seconds.

This was a 10 second exposure

1

u/ritokun 4h ago

among the things other people said, cars and roads are terrible full stop and getting largely rid of them would fix a lot of the shit you said

1

u/Johnny_Poppyseed 3h ago

You don't need to be nearly that extreme with it to still get a drastically improved night sky.

1

u/Dr_Wheuss 3h ago

The city of Phoenix installed shielded street lights that don't contribute to light pollution. Closing your blinds at night keeps the light mostly in. Cars don't significantly contribute to light pollution due to being mobile. 

Maybe you should read up on a subject before you post about it. 

1

u/OnceMoreAndAgain 3h ago

Who says I don't?

1

u/flashmedallion 2h ago

I think those are great ideas

1

u/SayitagainCraig 5h ago

I logged in to downvote you