Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by spongebobstoes | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

spongebobstoes·

light pollution already means the night sky is largely invisible outside of remote areas

View on HN

“You can’t see it most places so who cares if it goes away” is my most charitable interpretation of this.

I've never seen a glacier before, have you?

Yeah. Hiked on and around them in PNW mountains.

And?

Good for you getting that in before they disappear, probably got to see the night sky also, you can tell your grandchildren about that.

* https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

Glaciers have never been accessible to most people.

The night sky has, until recently.

Are you sure? Most people live in urban centers the last few generations and see few if any stars in the night sky

The majority of people live in cities - and a growing majority.

my comment is pushback against claiming "this generation" as uniquely doomed, and doomerism in general

I have seen both stars and satellites from suburbs and some urban areas. They are not very remote. There is a lot to see if you look. I do not like the light pollution but as it stands it is not the end of star gazing.

“Remote areas” make up most of the world.

Weighting by population seems reasonable here!

I think when it comes to watching the night sky, weighing to populated areas isn't necessarily right. It's not like you should value rural folks' view of the night sky less.

Paraphrasing (strawmanning?) the original - it doesn't matter if StarLink has ruined the night sky if city dwellers can't see the it. Well, I believe it still matters a lot. And we're still talking about nearly 1/2 the world population here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com