Hacker News Reader

This is not only about being able to see a nice night sky (although I admit I love seeing one), it's a very much more fundamental issue.

Light pollution has dramatic negative consequences for wildlife and thereby our ecosystem we so heavily depend upon.

View on HN

Yes it has negative consequences for wildlife, which is why it is FAR BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT to put all the agriculture in one place at high efficiency rather than spread farmland out over otherwise virgin wilderness.

Would you rather have 2x the wilderness 80% degraded or 1x the wilderness 90% degraded? Unless your plan is to decide who starves to death, it's far better to have greenhouses where we already have farms!

Stop with the false dichotomies. I would rather have no wilderness 90% degraded at all. There are better alternatives than spreading out the farmland. Like better greenhouses that don’t blast grow lights all over the night sky. We have the technology, it’s just cheaper to destroy the environment.

OK, looks like I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Therefore I fully agree with you!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com