When it’s scarce you want to waste it on the early morning?
Since tone can often travel poorly across the wire—that is sarcasm, right?
> The benefit of forcing the discipline of getting up early on children is greater than any health impact or inconvenience.
that a particular arbitrary method of instilling a particular arbitrary form of discipline is more important than any health impact or any inconvenience is horrifying to me, and I hope it doesn't find many adherents.
Edit: reply is dead so I can't respond, but 'beeboop, do you really have a problem with scouts? It's helped form a lot of good young men in America.
Getting up early: maybe for some people.
But forcing society to get up at a time that suits almost nobody purely because it is hard: no.
You might want to read more about the impact for lack of sleep on people's health.
They're not. This ignores diverging chronotypes. I suggest you read up on the science around sleep before commenting on whether "they're fine".
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/chronotypes-ev...
https://www.sleepfoundation.org/how-sleep-works/chronotypes
https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Sleep-Unlocking-Dreams/dp/1501...
I can't say for certain where my night-owlish self comes from, but it predates taking stimulants and working at a game dev company - so maybe it's a side effect of light sensitivity or maybe it's a neurological thing... or maybe it's just a natural clock thing.
It’s self-discipline theatre.
We used to need early rising when we milked cows and hunted at dawn.
But now we primarily need sharp minds and being awake at dawn has no special benefit.
I say this as an early riser.
Here’s why: The Hadza are hunter-gatherers whose lifestyle is very similar to that of early humans.
The observations were found in people with lifestyles that represent that of early humans. What part of nurture would affect those people? They have no concept of a clock...
Not to mention the extra energy use.
Correct, which is why the correct solution is to not have school start so bloody early.
For everyone not between the ages of 6 and 18, an extra hour of daylight in the evening is far more useful.
It also saves energy.
I agree. The solution to that is not to have kids go to school stupid early. Studies show that kids prefer to learn later in the day.
Besides, after school activities continue into the dark in the winter. Better to let the kids be able to be outside/playing/doing band/whatever in the evening instead of stuck inside because it's dark with their free time.
Fundamentally, for this change to satisfy its mandate, the kids have to to to school in the dark during the winter.
Fwiw, I think it's a fine thing. I always found it very romantic to go to school when it is still dark when I was young.
Your proposal would not satisfy the primary goal of the proponents of this policy. It would also still require one or more coordinated, discrete shifts in the schedules of schools and workplaces, which would likely be more complicated for computers and other systems than the status quo.
The assertion that the time is "not someone's business" is incorrect. The time is everyone's business. We are going to stick to a standard time after this policy -- it's going to be daylight savings time all the time, although we will probably stop calling it that after we all get used to the policy. Individuals or groups will be equally free to adopt their own schedules both before and after this policy change -- this policy is not a change on that front.
You misunderstood my meaning. I understand that everyone is concerned and affected by time. What I meant is it's not in their purview to push such things on the public.
Once again, the rest of the world works perfectly fine without the added complexity, so it should be proven with strong evidence rather than vague arguments that the added complexity is worth it. The rest of the world works perfectly well without DST.
It is, in fact, in the purview of the public to change the status quo as it pertains to time. We did it in when daylight savings was established, and we are going to do it again now that we are moving to permanent DST. The status quo affects people who don't like it, and they have every right to try to see it changed. There is no reasonable theory of politics that privileges the status quo to the point you seem to be contemplating.
> The rest of the world works perfectly well without DST.
Maybe we are talking past each other. You say the rest of the world does fine without DST. That's not actually true, most countries do have daylight savings. But you're certainly right that many countries do fine without it. For example it is not observed in South Korea. And after this law passes, so will the United States (i.e. the effect of this law is to abolish daylight savings time, by moving the clock permanently to the DST configuration).
It’s a silly idea that once thought out becomes clear.
Now, I favor never changing the time of each place and keeping on daylight time, but that's just me.
Supervision and legalities related to it can be boarderline oppressive in some places.
https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/overflow-data-finds-th...
And it's not my fault an article decided that street lights in the 70s were too dim for school children in new york.
Because even on the shortest day twilight happens before 7am.
And IMHO, beyond elementary school (and perhaps earlier) there's no reason most kids can't be unsupervised briefly before letting themselves out to get to the bus, or after being dropped off by the bus.
See the whole thing about free range kids, helicopter parents, and so forth.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/child-sleep-zzzs/202...
It says as late as 11pm. Another one says some of the later time can be explained by other things like light exposure. This seems to indicate that a 10pm bed time could be attainabke with a wake up time of 6 or 6:30 providing adequate sleep. Some of the studies show that even on weekends without the waking constraint teens are getting 7-8 hours or less. It's also indicative of weak influence when we see the remote learning being called a disaster yet these articles are touting the benefits of the extra sleep associated with them - where is the mitigating impact then?
Also from the articles, “As I often phrase it, multilevel interventions are needed,”. Why not start with the less intrusive interventions? Not all kids require a later start time, and could even be hurt by it. A later start time would have hurt me, for example. We need to make sure we aren't hurting some people in an effort to help others.
Perhaps the strongest evidence is that adults are not affected by the hormone related shift and yet they too do not get the recommended sleep. This points to the idea that environment and habit could be factors.
So far I see no absolute evidence of societal net benefit, largely because the studies ignore n-order impacts and fail to fully explore alternative explanations and remedies.
Don't forget, a lot of this is psychology and is just towing the line. They don't even know why bi-phasic sleep disappeared. I would love to see the data for adolescent sleep times and duration for the past 150 years, but it appears the studies completely ignore this. For knowing so little, they certainly are pushing hard for a specific change (a change that some of the studies don't believe will fix the issues, such as achievement gap, hormone altering light exposures, etc).
I wonder what the actual percentages are. It's probably a thing where each group can't believe that there's a significant number of people in the other.
"that hour or two of morning light is really just wasted."
Only for people who wake up late. There could also be benefits to aligning one's circadian rhythm to morning light.
The fundamental trade-off is: sunlight when you wake up and you're going to school/work, or sunlight when you're coming back from school/work? Unless you reduce the school/work day, this is unavoidable.
Changing the clock is, realistically, the only way to coordinate all the necessary actors.
Otherwise, if schools decided to start at 9AM, they would put a huge burden on parents starting work at 9AM, who no longer have time to drop their kids off and still make it to their workplace.
While also anecdotal, the responses here seem to favor evenings as opposed to mornings.
Preferably both, but the study which shows you are in the majority would be a great start.
https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/overflow-data-finds-th...
Most people arrive at work between 7:45AM and 8:00AM. Which means they are up at 6-6:30 probably. Having some Sun during this time is nice for most people.
Is there a study that actually proves this? That people prefer daylight in the mornings when they're an early riser? I don't think they're as correlated as you and the other person are making it seem to be.
There's your study. Having sunlight when people wake up is good. And if people pass stupid laws that make my life harder for it, I will bitch about it and antagonize them until they change them. Just like pretty much everybody else on this comment page.
Once again, your opinion is just that, your opinion. It doesn't mean everyone else shares it.
This would also address your morning light concerns.
Will get family services called on you. I don't think this affects more than a handful of people in 2022.
https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-lakewood-ohio-walking-...