April 3, 2006
View Comments | Post CommentDaylight Savings Time, and day itself, is stupid
Partially because of our recent spring forward, it feels like it's about five hours earlier than it is. Aren't I supposed to be tired right now? Anyway, daylight savings time has pros and cons.
On the good side, I love eating dinner while it's still light out. It reminds me of childhood summers when we'd eat dinner on the porch and then go for a walk around the pond, or a bike round to Hickory Hills. Winter affords me no parallel advantage, because I'm never up early enough to enjoy the sun rising, with or without the fall back. And yes, I'm glad daylight can blanket young childrens' commute to school in an illusion of safety. But there are obvious detriments as well. For starters, it's a big hassle for everyone to change their clocks. Inevitably, some people will forget to do so, and as a result, will be late to work and school, thereby creating a significant drop in the day's productivity.
But there is another unfortunate consequence of daylight savings time. It perpetuates the fiction of day and night.
Yep, the fiction of day and night. No, I don't believe light and dark are illusions, or that they are part of some elaborate conspiracy. I fully acknowledge the cycles of rotation and revolution that create alternating periods of relative brightness and darkness. But I think our adherence to those cycles to guide our life's routine is arbitrary at best. In fact, I think night and day are obsolete.
For thousands of years, we've possessed the technology to function at night. Our physiology dictates that we have an easier time of it during the light period, but ever since Bob the Caveman discovered that fire gave off light, we've been able to make due at night. Then around one hundred years ago, we came up with a much more efficient way of lighting the dark period. Electric lighting paved the way for what is now a much more lively night time than it used to be. Chemical, nuclear, and other forms of lighting may be employed in the future. Either way, we will get increasingly efficient at lighting the night.
Hence, there is no remaining reason why we should allow the cycle of light and dark to control the structure of our lives. Nearly everything traditionally reserved for the daytime can now be done at night, and vice versa. In fact, I can only think of two reasons (both valid) to adhere to our current system:
- We would all look terrible if we never got outside. And it isn't just looks. Our bodies supposedly get certain nutrients from the sun somehow. Don't ask me how, but it apparently happens.
- Lighting the night takes energy. This is a valid concern. But with more efficient lighting, as well as solar energy collection and such, this will hopefully cease to be as big a deal.
In any case, I'm not suggesting we reverse the cycles. The opposite cycle would be just as arbitrary. On the contrary, I think we need to recognize the full twenty-four hours of each day as possessing nearly equal potential for enjoyment and productivity. Why not schedule a business meeting at 3:00am? A softball game at midnight? Sex in the afternoon? Sleep in the morning? We already do some of those things, at least when we can.
In addition, not everyone's body seems naturally inclined toward a twenty-four hour schedule. Personally, if left without responsibilities for a couple weeks, I default to a cycle of around twenty-eight hours, staying up for around eighteen hours at a time, and then sleeping for around ten. That's just what feels best to me. Why should I be constrained by nature's haphazard occurrence that Earth rotates for twenty-four hours instead of twenty-eight? Well, one answer is that over millions of years, we have adapted to a twenty-four cycle, and are therefore evolutionarily suited for such a cycle. But I, and many others with different sleeping rhythms provide what are at least anomalies if not strong evidence that such and adaptation is not very strong if it has indeed occurred.
So what do you think? Besides, "But I like the sunshine!! LOL!!!!" what do you think about humanity's ability to transcend the twenty-four hour cycle nature has imposed? Why not embrace our flexibility and make more complete use of our nights? Or at the very least, why not accomodate those of us who may still be up at 7:50am writing a blog post, even though daytime dictates that they have class in a little over three hours?
Posted at April 3, 2006 7:54 AM | Comments (10)
Comments
Post a new comment
You're missing 2 major points...
We aren't really made to function without sunlight. People get seasonal depression in the winter. There are higher rates of SAD the farther North you go. In Tennessee, I used to go CRAZY craving sunlight. By January, I was thinking GIVE ME SUNLIGHT already. I also had a significant drop in GPA in the spring in 3 of my 4 years at VANDY (which I think is related). Now in Atlanta, I was aware that it wasn't daylight savings yet, but I wasn't feeling like I was missing something, since it stays light longer.
Also, young people's natural body clock is set to a longer than 24 hour period, but as you age it gets shorter and shorter, such that elderly people have a less than 24 hour period cycle.
Posted by: violet_flames at April 3, 2006 8:39 AM
Well, I can't comment on what you assert is empirical data about body clocks and aging, I can only give anectodal evidence that my body clock has gotten longer throughout my life. My father is fifty-five, and his body clock is quite similar. He can't sleep for more than about four hours unless he's been up for about twenty before it.
But on the sunlight issue, I agree, but you're misunderstanding what I'm advocating. I'm not saying that people should function only at night. "...I'm not suggesting we reverse the cycles." I'm saying we should be free to work on schedules shorter or longer than twenty-four hours.
Most people would still get, on average, just as much sun. Even as things are now, most young people miss out on around five or six hours of sunlight in the morning if left to their own devices. Let me illustrate:
A week is 168 hours. If I were free to do so, I would divide my week into six days of twenty-eight hours each. I would quite often be awake during the day if I stuck to such a plan. Some weeks would have more sunlight than others, but here's the thing: if you want more sun, YOU can still wake up at sunrise and go to sleep at sunlight.
Posted by: David Barzelay at April 3, 2006 11:45 AM
I think the bigger problem with everyone having their own schedules based on their own cycles is how the crap would we ever function business-wise if everyone was like "let's have a meeting at 3am" -- "well i sleep at 3am, but how about 6am" -- "well I sleep at 6am" so on. it's true people have different sleep cycles, but they're not varying enough to let everyone do their own thing. it's easier to schedule our lives around general time constraints of doing work between 7ish a.m. and 7ish p.m. and the other hours are your own.
but i read in the new york times about how realtors are beginning to have apartment showings and meetings at 3am and are open 24 hours a day to accommodate other people's schedules. but i dont think it would work for everything.
i also get super depressed in the winter. i love me some sunshine. lol! haha just kidding.
Posted by: Ula at April 3, 2006 1:40 PM
I was going to say something about the economic effect of your plan, but then I saw Ula already mentioned a bit of it. So I'll move on to something else.
I'd have no problem with 28-hour periods either. But I do find it interesting that you complain about society's tendency to function during daylight hours when, increasingly, that is not really the case. We are no longer a dawn-to-dusk society. We are becoming more and more of an around-the-clock society. Moreso in urban areas than elsewhere. For example, last week I had to run some errands for the newspaper - finding things to photogrpah for one story, and none of the stores I needed to visit were open before 10 am. Two of them didn't open until noon. 24-hour copy centers, coffee shops, restaurants, etc. are no longer abnormal. Except in the South, most places are open on Sundays too.
So it's not so much a day/night problem you have, but the 24-hour problem.
Also: BUT I <3 SUNSHINE LOL!!!
Posted by: Claire at April 3, 2006 2:24 PM
I forgot about springing forward and showed up to a meeting an hour late on Sunday :o( Oh, well. I've heard about entire cities or countries that don't practice daylight savings time, I wonder how they get along? How do they do business with neighboring communities?
Posted by: Liz at April 3, 2006 4:37 PM
In fairness, the earth does rotate once on its axis on average every 23h56m (it varies as much as a few minutes), and once around the sun every 365.25 24-hour periods. Even though I would love 28-hour days.
Posted by: Jeff at April 3, 2006 10:55 PM
I've maintained for a long time now that daylight savings time is a good thing, but only the fall one. I think we should gain (or is it lose?) an hour every daylight savings time. Sure, we'd only get to have "normal" day and night one out of every twelve years, but damn it! I want my extra hour of sleep! And in the end, wouldn't it be worth it?
Posted by: Aaron at April 4, 2006 1:59 AM
Yeah, I'm fine with that. Essentially, that plan would add an average of nineteen seconds to every day. And 86419 seconds is much better than 86400.
Just think of what humanity could accomplish with an extra 19 seconds per day!
Posted by: David Barzelay at April 4, 2006 2:09 AM
Humanity could sleep for 19 seconds longer. And oh that would be a sweet, sweet 19 seconds.
Posted by: Ben at April 4, 2006 7:39 AM
Here's what I think - lets pick a time and stick with it. I vote for the summer hrs - since the time change in the winter does nothing for me - I am up in the dark and go home in the dark regardless of that silly hr change. Ok and how much money does it cost to move time? After that is figured, what is the net savings? How much time and money is spent by the individual (nevermind the business) to update things with the new times? Does it out weigh any savings? - seems like the savings to energy is just spent elsewhere. Also, how effective is this for the millions that work nights or odd hrs? More and more we dont pay attention to day, vs evening, vs night.
Posted by: DENISE at March 9, 2007 9:33 AM
