Hacker News Reader

Comment by dorchadas | Hacker News Reader

Reminds me of another interesting thread on the topic, from January: "What do we lose when we lose the stars?"[0] Sadly, it seems many on HN don't seem to feel anything towards the dark sky at night. I wonder if it's because most people grew up in an urban area? I'm from a rural area and always had a stunning view of the night sky and would truly miss it, and feel like something of inconceivable value is lost if it just becomes a flickering mass of satellites moving around. It's something I'd love future generations to be able to have, especially as we're already going to be depriving them of so much given our current tendencies.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25969823

View on HN

I live in the Netherlands, which I think is the second worst place on the planet as it comes to light pollution.

I've never seen a truly dark sky full of stars until the age of 35. Not just never seeing one, not even being aware that it exists at all.

The eye-opening experience was in the Serengeti, Tanzania. Cruising the plains in a jeep some hours after sunset, to look for nocturnal animals.

Until the driver made a stop. We were told to get out, as he prepared hot chocolate, it was really freezing. Once we all had our drink, he then proceeded to turn off the engine and the jeep's lights (it had massive search lights)

Our group of 5 just stood there in complete awe, for minutes. A full 360 view with not a single light or object blocking a direct view at the darkest of skies, illuminated by millions and millions of stars. Endless.

Never before in my life have I experienced being part of the universe, I have only known it. Seeing it this directly, uncompromising, unpolluted was an absolute thrill. Further enriched with the howls of hyenas and nightly grunts of distant male lions.

The directness of the experience, feeling so close to it all, makes everything fall into place. How ancient people used it for navigation, or to count time. It is satisfactory at a very primal level.

A few years later in Colombia, we experienced it again. This time it was so clear that we could see the milky way with the naked eye.

Surely lots of people do live in rural areas, and cannot imagine this revelation. But for those living in extreme light pollution, it's like taking off a veil after decades, if ever.

Do I believe light pollution will be reduced so that we all can return to an "original" sky? No, quite the opposite. We'll have even more light pollution.

I'm really glad you got to experience that. I've only ever see it dark enough to see the Milky Way once, when I was out in rural Ireland. It was a stunning experience. But even the difference from where I grew up to where I am now is saddening, and I'm not currently living in a big city by any means. Thankfully, just a 45 minutes drive in the right direction makes it a bit better, but I can't help but feel a bit is lost every time.

Where in Colombia may I ask? I want to experience this, and I'm already in Colombia (urban area). Much easier for me than going to Tanzania hehe.

This was in the far east of Colombia, Inírida, Amazonian area. We had gotten permission from a local farmer to search his land for frogs.

Hrmm. Regarding light pollution I see a little black hole at the end of the fibre :-)

For one there are more and more areas labeled as "Sternenpark, Dark Sky Reserve" or similar, for the enabling the of experience you had, as reason.

Next, for ecological reasons, disturbing animals, insects.

Last, cost.

This could also be interpreted as resistance to change. Would the world be better if screens had not robbed people of the sensations of holding a physical book/magazine/newspaper? If electric or gas lighting had not filled the cities with light contamination? If planes and trains weren't making so much noise? If instant messaging hadn't replaced phone conversations?

A sky with thousands of satellites is something the next generations will admire as much as we admire the actual one with less satellites and more planes.

it's all subjective I suppose but your analogy is describing trading one human invention for another. but in this case we lose yet another connection to the natural world outside our own making -- and increase the inward facing, solipsistic bent of humanity.

Yet, looking forward, if Mars and the Moon get colonized, a swarm of satellites would be the quickest way to wire a whole planet, a whole network of planets. That would be the most looking outward humanity has done so far.

> This could also be interpreted as resistance to change. Would the world be better if screens had not robbed people of the sensations of holding a physical book/magazine/newspaper? If electric or gas lighting had not filled the cities with light contamination? If planes and trains weren't making so much noise? If instant messaging hadn't replaced phone conversations?

I think these are all questions that could, and perhaps should, be asked and pondered. For screens, it's not so much the sensation but what they have enabled (i.e. the dopamine hitting notifications), though there is evidence that our brain interprets text differently, less deeply, on a screen.

Likewise, I do think light pollution is bad, and perhaps we would be better if we took steps to minimize light pollution.

Same with noise pollution. I know I read that even low levels of noise pollution can heighten things like anxiety and drive a flight or fight response constantly. I for one look forward to electric vehicles in hopes that some of the noise pollution does die down, and think it will be better for many even if they don't realize it now.

Likewise, there's also evidence that interacting via messaging is robbing us of empathy, because we never hear other people's voices and learn to interpret body language cues and cue in on how others are feeling.

They're all questions that could, and should, be discussed and not just dismissed out of hand. In some respects, I truly think the Amish and the Luddites (who weren't necessarily against technology, but how it would be used and its long term cost-benefit ratio) took the correct approach to it.

It's not resistance to change, though. It's interpreting whether the benefits of that change are worth the downsides that come with it.

Doing cost-benefit analysis of new technologies is a good idea. More often than not for the majority of people the answer is "obviously worth it", and that can give an impression of out-of-hand dismissal. I for one would take all the downsides you mentioned and then some over the Amish lifestyle and it's not even close.

I don't think the majority of people actually do a full cost-benefit analysis, in particularly with the way advertising works. And doubly so with screens and the way things have slowly changed to become more addicting. That also assumes that all the costs and benefits are well known.

That said, I'm not sure I would take the Amish lifestyle as well, but it's definitely a close choice and I think they live more intentionally and that's something to be preserved. There are quite a few tradeoffs I would take though -- dropping text messaging for phone calls, for one; changing the way our cities are lighted to decrease light pollution; and definitely decreasing noise pollution.

The difference is, all your examples aren't unavoidable. I still own and can buy physical books. There are plenty of places without urban light pollution, as well as places without planes and trains. I can still make phone calls, and do so every day.

There is only one night sky, and when you put satellites in it they go everywhere. The remotest-living luddite bookworm will still have to see the satellites overhead.

The better analogy you should be making is (Assuming American here) do you really miss the old growth forests and wild areas that were leveled to make room for your cities and agriculture?" And the answer is, yes obviously! That's why we have national parks. But unlike with wildlife, the sky cannot be partially conserved. It's all or nothing unless all the satellites are geosynchronous. And I guarantee they won't be.

Planes are more intrusive. Bigger, brighter, and there are more of them. But they still don't ruin the night sky. At least for me, for naked-eye stargazing, satellites are a non-issue.

"To go into solitude, a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society. I am not solitary whilst I read and write, though nobody is with me. But if a man would be alone, let him look at the stars. The rays that come from those heavenly worlds, will separate between him and what he touches. One might think the atmosphere was made transparent with this design, to give man, in the heavenly bodies, the perpetual presence of the sublime. Seen in the streets of cities, how great they are! If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore; and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God which had been shown!" – Emerson, Nature, 1836

I love the night sky, so much that I want to go there and SpaceX is closer to making that possible than anyone. Starlink is an essential part of that.

From what I've seen, the satellites are barely visible to the naked eye, and that mainly near the horizon. They're not going to turn the sky into a flickering mass of satellites.

As I said elsewhere, that might be true for Starlink. But the first corporation that discovers it's cheaper to pay the fine than making it so they're not visible to the naked eye will do it without a moment's hesitation, and nothing will happen to them and then the night sky will be ruined for everyone. And more will follow suit. It's a conversation that needs to be had now, before that happens.

This assumes satellite constellations will actually effect the night sky, which it does not appear to generally be the case. From what I understand, it's easier to remove satellites from images than airplanes

Go out on a clear night in any reasonably dark place and look up. The satellites are there, faint tiny moving stars. The human eye is not a camera. The human soul is not an SD card.

It's a tradeoff which I am personally OK with.

im not sure how souls and SD cards come into this.

The post to which I was replying framed the problem as affecting imaging devices. I was introducing a new angle which is the human side, which was admittedly not part of the original article but nevertheless felt important to the conversation.

Starlink might not but I'm less optimistic about future ones. Who's to say that some company realizes they'll just get a (relatively) small fine if they skip the step that lowers visibility and decide it's worth the cost from a profit standpoint? It already happens now with pollution and I don't see companies changing.

Not to mention that many satellites are already visible to the naked eye in dark areas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com