As the paper states, the biggest problem is with the transition.
The paper also argues that standard time aligns more naturally with our circadian rhythm... but doesn't bother to compare that with the psychological benefit we get from hanging out with friends in daylight after work in the summer, or the psychological benefit of it not being dark when you go home and have dinner with your family.
I totally get that people who wake up early in the winter prefer standard time... but it really seems that for the population as a whole, permanent DST is the better option. And implementing it is so easy: once we're already in DST in the summer... you just never "fall back" to standard in the fall.
At normal time, on an equinox the night is from 6 in the evening to 6 in the morning and midnight is actually in the middle of the night. With DST it's from 7 to 7 and midnight is at 1. So keeping DST basically means you are shifting to a different "non-natural" time zone.
Let's just stop the DST keeping the natural local time and get up earlier anyway.
You can already see the problems just with families. As a parent, I can't change my operating schedule until the school that my kids go to changes its schedule as well, and my school can't change its own schedule until the majority of the parents are also able to cope with the new one. Every institution providing essential services to the rest of the population introduces coordination friction to a widespread schedule change.
Moving clocks is a much more effective way to realize a nationwide change. It solves the coordination problem, making sure that the whole society is doing the change in lockstep. In a way, getting good at coordinated clock changes is maybe the one benefit we've gotten out of decades of DST, so we might as well take advantage of it one last time...
Also, you may over-estimate the "natural-ness" of standard time. In most places, standard time is already way off of solar time, and as far as I can tell that's not really bothering anyone.
This really isn’t much to do with school schedules, school is out hours before bedtime. Yes, it can be tight getting kids to bed after work/daycare but I’ve never adjusted that target bedtime based on DST. If I did I’d then have to get them in bed earlier when it ends.
As parents why can’t we just do in summer what we usually do in winter? Somehow we handle two changes to daylight a year but we cannot handle zero? I don’t buy it.
Yes, Greenwich meantime goes through Spain, but we are an hour ahead of the UK's timezone.
I remember being in Chile years ago, travelling pretty much North to Peru, but there was a two hour time difference. They are in different timezones by one hour, and I think Chile had DST but Peru didn't.
Sure it can. Announce the change in advance and tell people they better be able to switch by then. Being able to coordinate changes like that is part of the point of having a state.
Been done before, can be done again. The trick is coordinating from the bottom, then up. The Dog wags the tail. Not the other way around.
> Been done before, can be done again.
I do not recall this, so to me this sounds like dreamscape idealism. I would like to be educated otherwise. Is this real? Is this actually possible in 2020 reality?
So yes, there are indeed states which are capable of these sorts of changes.
By contrast, standard time in the "contiguous states" is much closer to solar time. Keeping DST would bring the US closer to the rest of the world.
There are certain latitudes where DST makes sense and for the rest of the country it's just an annoyance. It seems like people in the rest of the country don't really understand the benefits or why some people embrace it.
- Being in the same time zone as locations, like NYC, that you communicate with and travel back and forth to a lot.
- Not "wasting" (from the perspective of most) summer sunlight at insanely early hours.
- Doing the best balancing act possible with less than ten hours of sunlight in the winter for necessary morning and late afternoon activities.
Go further north and you're pretty much screwed in the winter anyway--it doesn't really make sense for Newfoundland to try to eek out some winter morning sunlight--but in the Boston area you sort of can.
There is no “just” in “just stop the DST keeping the natural local time”.
There's also plenty of precedent for countries and blocks of countries using "unnatural" time zones for convenience. Warsaw is currently in the same timezone as Berlin, Paris, and Madrid. I mean look at this map, many countries are already offset by one hour from their natural time zone, DST or not: http://www.trbimg.com/img-56c3a997/turbine/la-fi-mh-your-tim...
That's true for a big chunk of the USA too.
I'm also in favor of keeping DST full time, I think it's the pragmatic choice. That being said it's been pointed out to me that part of the reason I like DST is because I don't have kids since when you have children going to school you typically need to get up earlier to prepare them and bring them there. Having DST year-round would mean that it would probably still be night time when the kids arrive to school.
Why does this thread exist? Because some scientists/doctors studied this very question and concluded that there are negative health and safety implications to continuing to do what we are doing. Conventions have consequences.
Even the actual position statement doesn't have a strong argument for which one should be the permanent time, and is worded as a hunch:
> Although chronic effects of remaining in daylight saving time year-round have not been well studied, daylight saving time is less aligned with human circadian biology — which ... could result in circadian misalignment
https://jcsm.aasm.org/doi/10.5664/jcsm.8780 (emphasis mine)
As mentioned elsewhere, we drifted into this over decades of laziness so it’s unreasonable to expect a swift (or even any) change if it’s left to those same people to rollback that lost hour.
Should one then wish to place work hours more optimally, which is just a general improvement unrelated to DST, then such one-off change is still much less work than biannual clock adjustments, and can be done at any time. No "swift" action is needed.
So, no reason to pick a stupid standard.
(Also do remember that different employments and businesses already have wildly different work hours, with many starting and ending outside the time of sunlight anyway. Being one hour off is already a luxury.)
I’m not meaning to be argumentative when I say that. I’m just being pragmatic based on the fact that we’re in this “time-shifted” state because of people’s laziness so expecting people to make a conscious effort to change for an idealistic goal (as sensible as that seems on paper) simply isn’t going to happen.
Not to mention that people’s personal timetable is often dictated by multiple parties (as I examples earlier: gym classes, sprint stand up, times of worship, school hours, etc). A change like that couldn’t easily be drip fed to the masses as everyone’s schedules have already been designed around the current “time-shift” and a persons schedule isn’t generally a solo calendar without dependencies.
For example I could start work an hour earlier but my sons childminder and daughters nursery isn’t opening an hour earlier. So I can’t change my behaviour. Everyone needs to make the change together if it’s going to work. Hence why changing timezones “works” for time-shifting. (I say “works” because it accomplishes it’s goal of time-shifting a populous but obviously different people might disagree it’s a solution to the larger problem of natural day light hours).
I suspect you are under the impression that work hours are standardized.
Nurseries don't open aligned with people's work hours, and people have to show up late and leave early as a result already. People have commutes and might also need to drive far to reach nurseries. Night shifts exist, and bakery employees show up at 5:30 AM to prepare for opening at 6AM, as the bakers go home after having baked during the night. The world isn't 9-5.
Indeed, maybe you'll be pushed out of the lucky zone temporarily by such a change, where others get pushed in. Work hours are organic, and nurseries follow suit. This is true regardless of the choice of hours, so pick the one without hacks.
Have you tried asking the other parents if they want it to open sooner too? If most of them want, I'm sure they will, and if they don't it's you that is wrong (but you can always go looking for another place that will open sooner).
It would indeed happen organically should DST be removed. It has not yet been abolished, so it has not yet happened.
You're talking about a separate issue which does also exist, but that global time makes worse. Right now solar noon is always roughly somewhat close to local time noon, rather than noon being, say, 02:00Z.
For example I’ve not even gotten into the financial cost of expecting everyone to change their documentation, advertisements, etc to reflect an earlier hour.
Sometimes the “worse is better” and in this case the “stupid” solution is actually the better one.
But cost was just one part of my point. The feasibility of getting everyone to change, by their own momentum, was another issue I raised.
You may have had a valid reason to do so long ago.
Last I checked that’s already well under way!
The former is government mandated and our clocks are changed. The latter is governed by ourselves and we have to change all schedules to reflect a new time 7am (etc) instead of 8am while the clocks remain the same.
The devil is in the detail.
I still mislike yawning "like a hippo" every spring as my 5th grade teacher wanted to publicly describe it, and here we are. I just want a good night's sleep.
Yeah, no thanks. This isn't an easy task for many people. Some people just naturally find it easier to wake up and get going in the morning. But there is a significant portion of people where that just doesn't happen for them. I've tried many different methods to try to be a "morning person" but it's as if my body naturally doesn't. My SO is the exact same way, and was before I knew them.
What? Work 5 hours less per week and let workers decide what to do with that extra hour per day? This must be labeled insanity to stop people from even considering it! It's madness!
Imagine the chaos! Combined classrooms. 1st and 2nd graders together, with two teachers offset by one hour. One teacher 8am to 2pm, another 11am to 5pm. The overlap, two teachers at the same time for combined class.
Nothing involving compromise and common sense should be allowed. Force workers to conform with arbitrary b.s.
Fuck that! I want a single unified global time!
Knowing that 6am is early is good, imagine how confused you'd be if you travel overseas but the timezone is always the same, you'd have to re-learn what time the morning is etc and constantly try adapt if to your situation.
The current local systems we use have function we take for granted..
I just have a UTC clock on all my devices (along side my local time) and I find that's the most useful. Local time is what I use primarily, UTC for international calls.
An interesting comparison would be dates. January in Sydney is summer time, and you just have to know that you aren't booking a beach vacation there in July.
Few people travel overseas in their lifetime anyway. If you happen to do it a lot then I am sure you'd get used to shifting the numbers.
We're inundated with time displays. Right now I have 5 time displays within 20 feet (computer, stove, microwave, phone, watch). I could imagine some people would continue to reference sundown / sunup for relevant situations (kids, get home by dark) the same as they already do, but not for anything time sensitive (like say a meeting). There's just no way I would schedule a call for "3 hours past sunset" even if I was forced to tell time in binary.
Also, think of how deleterious the abolition of local time would have on communication. Right now I can say something like "I received an urgent call at 3am" and you know immediately what that means. But if I said "I received an urgent call at 17:00Z", a lot of the meaning is lost. You'd have to know where I live, i.e. what my local time zone is, and then do some quick mental math to determine what actual time of day 17:00Z means for me. With local time, that calculation is already done for you! Local time is just too damn useful of a concept. It really truly is better than global time for most uses. Global time is really only useful for scheduling global meetings and computer stuff. Even within the US, all of our scheduling is done by US timezones.
[Well], think of how deleterious the abolition of [global] time would have on communication. Right now I can say something like "I received an urgent call at [17:00Z]" and you know immediately what that means [in reference to everything else happening in the world]. But if I said "I received an urgent call at [3am]", a lot of the meaning is lost. You'd have to know where I live, i.e. what my local time zone is, [where the caller is] and then do some [potentially complicated] math to determine what actual time 3am means. With [global] time, that calculation is already done for you! [Global] time is just too damn useful of a concept. It really truly is better than [local] time for most uses. [Local] time is really only useful for scheduling [local] meetings and [in-person] stuff.
Also, I don't understand what point you're making. The square bracket stuff you've added doesn't work. You haven't managed to correctly communicate the fact that the person was woken up in the middle of the night. Which is what local time is extremely good at and global time cannot do -- putting a specific time in context with the rhythms of the day. Which, you know, is very important for most normal communication. I can't even schedule a worldwide meeting using global time; I have to use the local time of each participant individually to figure out what the best time is that maximizes the # of people calling in during the workday and minimizes the # of people that need to be up in the middle of their local night.
If somebody wanted to communicate that they were woken up in the middle of the night, they could use this perfectly fine sentence:
"I was woken up in the middle of the night."
Communication wouldn't break down just because everybody didn't have an identical reference point w/r/t timestamps in relation to daylight cycle. Something we don't have today anyway, by the way. When is dinner, for example? (conservative answer: 16:00 to 23:00).
Local time is incredibly useful. It's never going away. It's utter fantasy to think that everyone is ever going to just give up local time and only speak in vague terms like "an hour after noon".
Is Tokyo in the some timezone as Beijing? Is London in the same timezone as Reykjavik? Did Mexico start daylight savings last week or now? I have to look up stuff to answer these things, as well as the local timezone designation (is it ET or EDT? Is it CT stand for "california time" or CT for "central time"? Is there a CT in another part of the world that could be misunderstood by another participant?), so that I can publish the meeting time correctly without people misunderstanding it. Roughly avoiding unreasonable times is much easier to do than this. The sleep times of Reykjavik and the sleep times of London don't really differ by much, so as long as the proposed time steers clear of that, it will be fine.
In fact all I need is a world map that shows me the day/night part of the Earth as I slide the (UTC) time -- there are many apps that do this already. Then schedule the meeting such that the greatest number of participants fall under the daylight. Then publish the meeting as a single UTC time. That's it.
Given your example we must be talking about different things. I'm saying ONE time globally.
If you’re suggesting i missed some sarcasm, it doesn’t matter because this is a fairly common belief I’ve heard from others.
Countries have weird time zones like how China has a single time zone even though the country spans the area of three. Apparently Palestine and Israel have different time zones despite being the same physical location. It gets dark at different times depending on how close to the equator you are. If you want to know if it’s night or day somewhere, you already have to look it up, so nothing would change if time zones were abolished.
Similarly, businesses already have varied opening hours so again you have to look it up. Hell, without time zones it would be easier because if the website says “you can call us between 0900 and 1700“ you know that you can call them when your clock is between those times, no need to mentally time zone adjust.
My point is that the arguments against laid out in that post, by and large, are already the case so things don’t really get any harder, certainly not after we adjust to the idea, but without time zones we have a single consistent time, we just adjust our schedules based on our local day/night. Hell, if more people work from home and more companies hire foreign remote workers, a shift from local to global time would benefit everyone.
People are quite adaptable. Look at the giant changes in working hours, open hours, & distance communications from the Covid-19 epidemic. People got a crash course in the variety of other times/workplaces/rhythms that others considered necessary or possible... and managed.
The decision-supporting knowledge "it's 4am there" could simply become "it's 2 hours before sunrise there" - and trigger a confirmatory "are you sure?" dialog, or offer to remind of the ideal time-to-all, from the communications device you're using.
(In fact, there's a giant range of potential new ways to signal ambient awareness of not just a destination region's openness to calls/messaging-interruptions, but every individual person's openness – and global UTC might be just the impetus to drive innovation in the phoning/texting apps.)
If Nevada now has to use permanent PST, then their time will be 2h off in the summer, instead of just 1h off as with PST/PDT. So, basically, they should be allowed to keep PDT (-0700) year-round, or, to put it simply, switch from permanent PDT (-0700) to permanent MST (-0700), which they are not allowed to do without a US DOT approval.
Likewise, if you look at the map, Indiana, Michigan and some other states, might also want to switch from Eastern to Central, once DST is no more.
If we're going to make a big change why not US Standard Time? China runs a single national time zone China Standard Time.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6692659/ -- and specifically https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6692659/figure/... -- provides maps which show the best longitude-based alignment for the timezones, and Nevada is entirely within the Pacific portion.
Isn't the US a bit too wide to have a single timezone? They've tried it in Russia in 2010s, to skip a few "extra" timezones, because 11 total timezones is quite a bunch as-is, but, apparently, the folks weren't all too happy about it, and the change was reverted several years later.
Unfortunately that will split the vote. If 60% favor eliminating the transition, that probably means 30% prefer keeping DST and 30% prefer eliminating it. Those will lose out to the 40% who prefer keeping things as they are.
I'm all for putting the sun straight up at noon, though!
Perma DST is the easier change.
Ironically the parent post seem to be a person with a social yet lack (i.e. forced to stand up earlier then their inner clock, i.e. often stands up late). But especially people like that are biologically negatively affected by permanent summer time.
I meant Jet Lag, which is also used in German as Jetlag.
But I somehow thought it's written Jet Lack and typoed it as yet lack. No idea why I thought it's Lack, maybe because you lack sleep after taking a jet ?
Our society is calibrated with the assumption that you will wake up early. Early bird gets the worm and all that, but everything is essentially rigged toward it. From the time/daylight, to school start time, going by quiet hours (hope you enjoy jack hammers starting at 7am stats, because by most city's ordinance, that's not only allowed, it's NORMAL. And to start at 7, the trucks and crew have to start getting ready long before that).
I assume a large part of it is the emphasis on family and kids, and generally for people with young children, early morning isn't really early.
But for a lot of people...ouch.
Considering all the literature around the issues related to sleep deprivation, and how so many people are sleep deprived (likely related to a lot of mental issues, stress, and various other health problems), we really need to work and optimize around making it possible for people to sleep enough. As things are, if you can, it's just dumb luck.
You drill children and teenagers to get up early, so that later they are obedient, tired work horses who won't get any ideas.
Then the upper classes sagely quote that general who said that only "smart" and lazy people are leaders of the highest order.
Yup. Needing sleep is considered a luxury. If you complain about not having enough, you're "weak". If you can't sleep because of your neighbors, it's considered a mild inconvenience.
Really, we need sleep like we need food, water or air.
By what logic is 7 early? Dawn is well before 7 (at least most of the year) so many people sleep in past dawn, but stay up long after sunset, which is absurdly wasteful.
Early and late are relative concepts. As others have pointed out, there's a variety in natural circadian rhythms, as well as preferences.
So to claim an approach other than your own is "absurdly wasteful" strikes me as just shallow and arrogant, and the reason we wound up with DST in the first place.
In my case, I struggle to do serious work outside of 10am-10pm. I wake at 7am because of my partner, but for the first three hours of every day, my brain hardly works. I have to fill my time with other things - exercise, reading, chores, and so on. If left to myself, I naturally go to sleep at midnight and wake at nine, and feel better for it.
With that said, even if we forget about that, what's early is defined by what we consider late.
If you have a teenager who needs 9+ hours of sleep, and they cannot go to sleep before 11pm (because we allow people to be noisy until at least that late), then 7 is quite early, yes.
I have two young children, and IME what you say is true of infants, but not other young children.
So 7am would feel pretty normal.
Noise ordinances are generally 2200 to 0700 or so, going by "solar time" and keeping the same length of calm would make it 1930 to 0430 instead.
Funny, I've gotten 8+ hours of sleep over 95% of nights in the past 5 years. I must have a string of very good luck. It probably isn't due to lifestyle choices.
Once you have a consistent schedule, barring medical issues, sleeping is easy. Simply pick a time 8+ hours before your routine for the day needs to begin, and get into bed at that time every day. Actually in bed! Not on your phone, not watching TV, lights off and eyes closed. Helps if your evening routine winds down in intensity, but won't matter much if you're already exhausted. You can't do anything about your mind racing some nights, but for the most part after a week of this schedule your body takes the hint and adjusts your rhythm accordingly. I've worked tons of odd night shifts this way; the consistency of routine seems to be far more important than the specific time.
Which block of time works for you is a matter of job, lifestyle, and a bunch of other factors that a lot of folks may not be in full control of. I think the real dumb luck here is having enough controllable factors that carving out the same 8+ hour block each night is possible. In my mind though, it is worth the effort. Good, consistent sleep quality has an absolutely massive impact on your willpower and general ability to focus.
I respect your personal experience, but you are coming on a little strong in terms of assuming everyone is just like yourself.
Something I've seen other people mention, and may have myself (although not formally diagnosed):
I have worked 8-5, 2-11, and 11-8, and no matter what my schedule was, I had the urge to stay up a little later, but needed at least 8 hours to feel adequately rested. So typically I would get 7 hours or so and feel exhausted every morning. Without work or appointments, I would rotate my schedule around the clock, day by day. It's as if I was tuned to a planet with a slightly longer day.
After many, many years, I found by accident that bupropion (aka Zyban aka Wellbutrin) fixed it, just like that. It was amazing. But I wasn't able to tolerate a full dosage, so that didn't last. It does point to some dysfunction of nicotinic receptors.
This was actually a significant point of contention between myself and my advisor, who interpreted my working late at the lab as though I was trying to cram extra time to make up for not being there otherwise, or something. Those are just my most productive hours ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but to him I was lazy and irresponsible.
My natural sleep period seems to be around 9 hours. I can make myself do 7 (I currently keep a ~1:30am-9am schedule, with some effort), but anything less has noticeable effects on my cognitive state, and I still start getting tired again around 5pm. If I do sleep at 5pm, I'll wake somewhere between 11pm and 2am, which is bad but in the other direction. So I have to fight through the late-afternoon slump. It's very easy to knock me off of this schedule, and I've been keeping it for two years since I left grad school.
Sleep disorders are real, and they are not simply symptoms of a poor work ethic.
You may want to look into Suvorexant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suvorexant). It's the one drug that I've found to be extremely effective without causing any sort of hangover in the morning. It really felt like a miracle drug as compared to things like zolpidem and antihistamines. YMMV but I'd say it's worth looking into if you're really struggling.
I should also mention that I've found a combination of exercise, time in the sun, and proper sleep hygiene to be the only viable long-term solution. But I do believe that sleep aids can be a useful bridge towards developing a consistent sleep schedule.
Can you expand on what you mean by this?
I found that 75 mg twice a day made me feel ready to wake in the morning like I basically never have been, but it also had intolerable side effects. Going back to 75 mg/day, halving it, is bearable, but also reverted my sleep pattern.
I am taking melatonin at the moment, because why not, but I don't notice much effect except an increase in dreaming (or remembering it).
It's easier to fall asleep sometimes, but I find sleep quality markedly worsened with cannabis, personally. I have to sleep an extra hour or two if I've consumed cannabis prior to sleep.
I buy melatonin that comes in 1mg pressed/powder pill form and just bite it to split it in half and toss the other half back in the bottle.
I've been doing this for 2 years now and have never had to change the dose. At one point I even considered seeing if .25mg would be sufficient but depending on the brand sometimes the pill crumbles up too much so I stick with .5mg. I've used Nature's Bounty and Webber Naturals and both brands seem to work the same for me.
I really wish I had figured this trick out a lot earlier in life as it would've saved me from missing out on a lot of opportunities in my career.
(more detail about my experimentation below)
Before I discovered this I tried everything from reducing screen time before bed, cranking up night mode in flux/redshift, abandoning coffee/caffeine entirely, working out earlier in the day instead of evenings, etc. _Nothing_ worked for me - my brain would remain wide awake and I would have to stay up until 5-7am before I even began to feel tired (where I would have to wake up between 10-11am for work).
I had even tried melatonin before too but it was a 3mg pill and it would produce very erratic results in my sleep quality. I'd sometimes wake up drenched in sweat or wake up feeling very groggy for hours so I figured melatonin just wasn't for me. It wasn't until I came across some advice on /r/n24 or /r/dspd to try .5-1mg of melatonin that I decided to try again (IIRC it was a post about how doses >=2mg can actually result in melatonin overdose and result in the types of symptoms I was observing - TBH I didn't really bother verifying that info and just figured I'd try .5mg and see what happened as I was desperate for a solution).
And for the record, with this approach I haven't had to make any other modifications to my daily routine. I continue to lift heavy in the evenings and drink 1-2 cups of drip/espresso every day.
The only situations I've noticed where this trick falls apart for me are:
1) if I ever try to push past that 20-40min period where I start to get drowsy, it results in me being awake again. This rarely ever happens and I usually just end up sleeping about an hour later. I make sure to take the melatonin just before I begin flossing+brushing and get in bed right after
2) for some reason drinking a can of coke/pepsi in the evening will keep me wired awake all night. I've had cups of coffee in the evening rarely which never had the same effect, but coke/pepsi will...
Anyway, just thought I'd share since this made a huge difference in my life - maybe worth trying/experimenting.
One of the problems of melatonin is that in some countries it's sold as a supplement not a medication, so the regulation is much less strict.
The dosing varies so much, even in product labelled as 1 mg.
> In this issue of the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, Erland and Saxena systematically analyzed the actual melatonin content (and presence of contaminants) in 31 melatonin supplements purchased from groceries and pharmacies in one city in Canada (before countrywide OTC use of it in Canada was banned). Their findings herald what may also be true in OTC melatonin supplements marketed in the United States. Melatonin content varied from an egregious −83% to +478% of labeled melatonin and 70% had melatonin concentration ≤ 10% of what was claimed. Worse yet, the content of melatonin between lots of the same product varied by as much as 465%.3
> The most variable sample was a chewable tablet (and most likely to be used by children). It contained almost 9 mg of melatonin when it was supposed to contain 1.5 mg and also exhibited the greatest variability between lots (465% difference). The lowest melatonin content was −83% compared to its labeled value in a capsule that also contained lavender, chamomile, and lemon balm. Capsules showed the greatest variability between lots. Liquid supplements surprisingly showed generally high to median stability with low lot-to-lot stability. The least variable products were those that contained the simplest mix of ingredients, generally oral or sublingual tablets with melatonin added to a filler of silica or cellulose derivatives and were the most reproducible. The last disturbing finding was more than a quarter of melatonin products contained serotonin, some at potentially significant doses. Serotonin is a breakdown product of melatonin metabolism but could have medicinal effects and should be taken without oversight. In short, there was no guarantee of the strength or purity of OTC melatonin.
Forcing yourself to get in bed even when you're not sleepy can potentially lead to just lying there thinking, conditioning yourself negatively, especially if the character of those thoughts is "argh I should be asleep why am I not sleepy I'm going to be so tired in the morning what's wrong with me..."
- people need between 7-10 hours of sleep depending on age
- most people don't fall asleep instantly
- sleep deprivation is a pervasive problem with significant health implication.
If we (again, forgetting circadian rythm as it makes things more nuanced) move things to start at 5am that's fine, but then things have to stop much, MUCH earlier (they wouldn't).
I don't know you, where you live, what you do for work. I don't know which ones of these apply to you. Maybe none d, but then something else does. Yes, you're lucky.
I had to move 3 times in 2 years because I wasn't so lucky, and I'm still not lucky so I'm throwing enormous amounts of money at the problem (money most people wouldn't have, because they're not as lucky as I am). And no amount of money will fix my biology.
I personally think these society-wide policies should reflect the realities of the population. Which often means reviewing them every once in a while to see if it still makes sense.
Far too much gov policy is fire-and-forget and obsessed with forever adding new things.
In my perfect world at least 50% of time should be spent reviewing and tweaking existing policy.
People need showing how to wear them properly, really just read the instructions on the packet but so many people insert them haphazardly then say they don’t work or they fall out.
This is an interesting comment to me. San Francisco is really, really loud -- the biggest offender, when I was there, was near-daily sirens from (I believe) fire trucks.
But this is not a necessary aspect of living in a city. I often did wake up early in Shanghai, but that was because the sun came up at 4 am. Noise wasn't much of an issue during the ambiguous times. (Before firecrackers/fireworks were outlawed, they were common, but they were more of an afternoon thing.)
Ding ding, we have a winner.
Around here, if you complain about noise, you'll just be told "It's a city, it's noisy, deal with it! If you don't like it, move to the suburbs!". Which is kind of a silly suggestion: I've lived in the suburbs and kids having pool parties were a lot noisier than anything I've seen in a city. You'd have to be in the middle of a forest or something to not have to worry about human noise. In cities, suburbs, whatever, noise is a lot more cultural, and what people consider okay or not.
Sure, some level of cars/traffic will just happen. Other things like construction can be done in a lot of ways (some cities require plans on how they will minimize inconvenience to neighbors. Others are free for all). Backup alarms seem like a necessary evil, but I'm told in London they're not really a thing. People screaming at 2am is just about enforcement and cultural norms.
Some cities are loud. Other, bigger cities aren't.
You must live in a different west than I do, because although there are sometimes noisy works in my cities (I've mostly lived in France and Belgium, but my year in Montreal wasn't different on this aspect actually) these are only punctual occurrences, and even in my latest house, where there have been buildings being built in my street for two years, it's only been noisy in the morning a couple weeks at most over this time.
I'm more inconvenienced by regular automobile traffic, which isn't limited to special hours, motorcycles can speed down the street and wake us up at any time of the night.
There's been construction around me for the last decade. Most of the projects have been fine. The current one is managed by the devil himself and making everyone miserable. It's just luck. That's the problem.
Having a shared meal schedule across society means it's relatively easy to plan social or otherwise shared events. You certainly don't have to care, but given how large a part of people's lives groups and group activities are, it's hardly surprising such a deviation would lead to jesting at least.
I don't know which country you live in but I'm sure young people wouldn't raise an eyebrow if you ate dinner before 8PM.
The general consensus here among young people is that the world is burning so go ahead and eat cereal in your pajamas at 3PM it doesn't really matter.
So if you wanted to push these hour-bound institutions one direction or another, how would you do it?
Expecting every institution to change will never happen. Else the US would be using the metric system by now.
Permanent DST is a good idea but either way would be better than the status quo.
People keep asserting this. It's not changing my mind.
> Else the US would be using the metric system by now.
The metric system has a barrier that shifting work schedules does not. If an institution does business with another institution, or multiple other institutions, it's probably very inconvenient if one is using a different measurement system than another: contracts, designs, etc. would have been drawn up with one set of units; translating things like error margins (expressed as significant figures) may not be trivial.
But if an institution decides to shift its work hours, it can do that unilaterally, unless it was doing critical business with another one during the first (or last) hour of the day—but even if that's so, that probably only means a small fraction of the employees need to have slightly different hours.
Shifting the schedules can be done piecemeal, as gradually as is convenient for everyone.
> People keep asserting this. It's not changing my mind.
That's ironic. You're arguing against the idea that people don't want to change by refusing to change.
The label for 8 am might as well be the TAFNAP era prince logo. The point is everyone goes to work at TAFNAP, businesses are open until TAFNAP + 8. In case you need to run an errand and talk to the guy that repairs HVAC systems. None of these sorts of errands is pleasurable or light-dependent and might as well be done in the misery of the dark that I lend to my employer for my work hours.
I don't know about you, but in the short winter months I'd rather get to work at night, run my lunch errands when the sun is 3/4 up in the sky, and end my work day with a couple of hours of sunlight to spare in the afternoon when my time is my own than burn sunlight driving in a cubicle.
There are some that manage to make use of early morning light to go surf (when the wind is favorable), or do some farm stuff (when the animals are cooperative??). I'd wager that surfers and farmers are a small portion the population and a lot of workers don't have some intrinsic benefit of spending their workday in daylight vs. night.
One detail -
That timing is standard time + 1 all year round.
Looks like 2017-2018 57% percent of workers had flexible schedules: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/flex2.t04.htm
I used to think I didn’t want daylight savings time until I looked at the sunrise & sunset chart and saw what happens when it’s not there. I realized I like what happens in the summer relative to my work day. This site’s sunrise & sunset charts are amazing, btw: https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/san-francisco?month=6&ye...
For non-distorted time zones, when the clock strikes 12 everyone can look up and say that the sun is roughly closest to 12.
If we were too literal with this definition, 12 would even change everyday because of the analemma .
personally, I would love to shift sunset to like 5-6 hours after work ends to maximize daylight after working hours. Sometimes in the winter its dark when you wake up, and dark when you get off work, which can't be great for mental health.
We run Just In Time manufacturing, there's no possibility going to work earlier than I already do: 05:30 for a 10 or 12 hour day.
Never under estimate the ability of people to complain about the status quo.
But I also spend some time further north, in northern Michigan, and there I'd sure be annoyed if the sun were still up at 10pm in the summer. And might be willing to accept a 4pm winter sunset in order to have the sun up before 8am - that far north, you won't be out much in the evening in the middle of winter, anyway, and shoveling the sidewalk before sunrise is just depressing.
Then I realize that this is all kind of beating around the bush, and what I'd really like is an end to the USA's ridiculous culture of 9 hour work days and eating at one's desk, so that I could take a long lunch and use that to get my sunlight in winter.
So, meh, I think that I really don't care between permanent standard and permanent daylight time, I just want to get rid of the changing.
Out of interest why would you be annoyed - here in Scotland it's still light at that time in summer and it is glorious - best time of the year.
It is pretty glorious, though some folks do need to darken their bedroom to sleep well - especially immigrants.
After 7 years here, I still don't recommend swimming in a pond on a mountaintop. The water is still cold.
Also, IMO, unless you've got proper black-out blinds, never getting dark during summer is a PITA!
But since I moved to Russia, I have thoroughly enjoyed no DST, it really is a headache for a lot of things and it's more annoying to work with our colleagues in the US and EU who do respect DST as we have to add just that much more planning. DST is an artifact we don't need anymore.
Example: 8am-3pm during winters. 9am to 4pm during summers etc?
If you are going to have standard/daylight time it is a lot easier to just change the clocks since clocks are designed to be easy to change.
For a while this was not true. When digital electronics became cheap and common, designers started putting clocks in everything and so a DST change might involve going through your house having to change dozens of clocks.
Before this, we'd typically only have a couple wall clocks in a house, an alarm clock in each bedroom, and our watches, most of which we had to regularly set anyway to keep them on time so DST wasn't much of a hassle.
Now we still do have clocks everywhere--I think I counted something like 20 clocks in my house recently--but now most of them are self-setting. I've only got 3 that I actually have to manually change for DST.
There have been immeasurable amounts of engineering put into this, and it still doesn't reliably work.
That apart, there are so many countries in the world with vary different day light timings based on season and very few of them have daylight savings time.
Although historically, if I'm not mistaken, it tends to be in the other order. Government services tend to sync up with what everyone else is doing (my understanding is that the 8 hour day originated in the private union movement and only came to government work later).
It actually does that here in Launceston Tasmanian..
Not full sun, but definitely still twilight at 21:50.
And your right: it's fucking irritating for a good three or four weeks.
I need a sleep mask.
We should phrase the battle as "Keep summer daylight" and "abolish winter early sunset".
It's imperative that we spin it this way.
It really makes the winter a lot less tiresome when you can walk to and from work under bright blue skies and feel the warmth of the Sun.
And you'll have sun at lunch time except in extreme cases.
So when days are short, mid-morning and afternoon are where the difference is really made. And I'd much rather have sunlight when I go home than have more mid-morning already-at-work/school sunlight.
If you can only have one of morning and evening in light, morning is probably more important for a couple reasons even ignoring the circadian rhythm considerations.
1. We are more synchronized in morning. In morning you have adults going to work and kids going to school. We are much less synchronized in the evening--young kids come home earliest, then middle and high school kids, then adults. Furthermore, more people stay late at work than go in early to work, so you get further spreading out of the commute home.
With the morning getting heavier, more concentrated traffic, it makes sense to prioritize giving it the light.
2. The morning before the sun comes up tends to be the coldest time of the day. You are much more likely to have icy roads during a predawn commute than during a postdusk commute, further bolstering the case for prioritizing standard time over daylight savings time during winter.
Adjusting clocks by an hour is an absurd workaround that doesn't even suit everyone and causes no end of problems and confusion, it's well past time it was abolished worldwide,
It's the difference between
- Your office deciding to ignore daylight savings (starting November 1st, ending March 8, we expect employees to reschedule all recurring meetings/work hours/events to an hour earlier, changing 9-5 to 8-4). I can just imagine the shitshow of complaining and bikeshedding.
- Your state asking or requiring offices to change schedules like above. I can't see asking working, and I can't see requiring being a feasible law.
- Your state just saying that 2am is now 1am for a few months.
It's all the same thing from one perspective, but very different from a coordination perspective :(
The EU is already planning to do this. The sky will not fall, and life will continue on but without the awkward twice-yearly clock change.
In Austin (where I live) the summers are so hot that you go out before 10am, and then it’s too hot to go out again until the sun starts to set. I _absolutely_ go walking before work. My schedule does not seem uncommon either - at least 50% of the people in the high rise I live in do the same.
Shifting IS the worst. Heck even the orbital tilt changing the length of daylight in semi-northern latitudes is icky.
The whole year round: daylight then three minutes later BAM! night with bugger all twilight.
If you want to compare the effect of permanent daylight vs permanent standard then just look at cities near the boundary. Drive a few miles away and voila you're 1 hour ahead or behind - throughout the year.
If one is better than the other, it will show up there.
I really dislike it. We do time based reporting and it messes up all the calculations at DST change. All kinds if weird bugs that trigger once per year, especially when time skips backwards. It's also dumb how trains have to stop and wait for an hour at the winter DST change in order to maintain the schedule. It would be a breath of fresh air when it's finally dropped in the EU.
It was, and did, but that was based on a time when lighting drove total electrical load. That's no longer the case due to increasing energy efficiency in lighting and the growth of other common electrical loads.
I still think there's a wealth of useful data of the same type that can be found at timezone borders. Many will have the transitions as a slight confounding factor, but it doesn't completely invalidate the applicability of the data.
Comparing no-transition borders with transition borders might also yield some interesting findings.
- Permanent summer time would have negative biological consequences for everyone having social yet lack, i.e. everyone who frequently stands up earlier then their inner clock indicated. I.e. people who tend to stand up late.
- This is soundly researched.
- The exact degree of how bad the consequences of permanent summer time are unknown and hard to say as they are long term effect, BUT only <2% of people (in Germany) have a negative yet lack while much more have a positive yet lack because of this it's generally better to opt for permanent winter time then summer time
It does? I only read the abstract because trying to download the PDF says it's embargoed.
The abstract says that (1) the transition creates "significant" risks and (2) "remaining in daylight saving time year-round ... could result in circadian misalignment ... [and] increased cardiovascular disease risk, metabolic syndrome and other health risks".
I don't see anything in there that says 1 or 2 is a bigger or smaller problem.
It's just so much better psychologically and physiologically but it's also amazingly practical. I don't need a flashlight and the BEST time to hike and be active is dawn and dusk when it's cooler.
I'll even start taking naps in the middle of the day the same way other large animals do (bears, deer, etc).
We have lights. We use them on warm autumn days with friends and family and when folks are sitting around outside playing cards late into the evening. I'm not convinced daylight is needed to enjoy time with friends and family. Sure, you might enjoy it, but it isn't exactly a deal-breaker.
And no, I don't get that "not being dark when I go home". I'm in Noway, and if you work first shift - or heck, even business hours - you'll only see sun in December on your lunch break. Again, though, we have lights, and they are a pretty wonderful thing. Outdoor heating and blankets extend outside time too.
Not just that, but folks with a later rhythm are going to suffer more. I'm going to guess especially teenagers (in general) will suffer, as doctors already complain that school is too early: Permanent summer time pushes it an hour earlier.
You could move the time zone three hours and at the same time change school hours by three hours, but what would be the point of that?
School hours is the main thing that isn't flexible. Office hours vary. Shops can easily be flexible. There's the stock exchange, I suppose, but most people don't interact with that.
So the obvious thing to do is to abolish summer time and leave winter time as it is.
There's been plenty of research on this and Standard ("Winter") Time is best for humans. A peer-reviewed paper with plenty of footnotes if you want to dig into the details / weeds:
> In summary, the scientific literature strongly argues against the switching between DST and Standard Time and even more so against adopting DST permanently. The latter would exaggerate all the effects described above beyond the simple extension of DST from approximately 8 months/year to 12 months/year (depending on country) since body clocks are generally even later during winter than during the long photoperiods of summer (with DST) (Kantermann et al., 2007; Hadlow et al., 2014, 2018; Hashizaki et al., 2018). Perennial DST increases SJL prevalence even more, as described above.
> Discrepancies and misalignments between social (local) clock time, sun clock time, and body clock time can be caused by political decisions: DST is one example. There are multiple health and safety consequences of these misalignments. Our goal is that this article’s facts and reasoning will be used to make clock choices that improve human lives.
They explicitly state that always-DST is worse than the current switching regime.
Various societies of chronobiologists recommend getting rid of DST completely:
> The authors take the position that, based on comparisons of large populations living in DST or ST or on western versus eastern edges of time zones, the advantages of permanent ST outweigh switching to DST annually or permanently. Four peer reviewers provided expert critiques of the initial submission, and the SRBR Executive Board approved the revised manuscript as a Position Paper to help educate the public in their evaluation of current legislative actions to end DST.
If we're going to go through the drama of making this change (and some of us had to live through the 'Bush' DST change), then biologically speaking, the best current research says Standard Time is the way to go.
For example, I followed several of the citations that the position paper claims to show that daylight savings time changes cause measurable negative health effects. Koopman et al showed that social jet lag is associated with higher diabetes rates. This is people who change sleep patterns by more than 2 hours every week. It’s pure unsupported assumption to imply that the switch to daylight savings time twice a year shares these effects. Same goes for Haraszti. Hafner et al studied problems of lack of enough sleep in general, there is no connection to the twice yearly time change.
It only takes a few of these to start smelling agenda, and see clearly that the “plenty of footnotes” pile of evidence is being made to appear larger than it really is. I don’t really get why though. I’d be happy not switching times, but I have good reason now to be skeptical of this research’s claims that there are large measurable differences between settling on standard vs daylight time. Why are you sure that standard time is somehow better, and what does it mean to you?
Pretty much no one is sleeping properly anyway and we're all dying early from lifestyle related illness.
More daylight ours to get fuck-eyed I say.
Which, if you're going to do, you might as well make standard time the standard. Because it's the standard.
The jobs that do already have seasonally shifting hours.
Permanent daylight time means that by default, everyone gets to enjoy more sun. Permanent winter time means that by default, everyone gets to enjoy one less hour of daylight by default, unless their company is charitable enough to shift their hours.
It's the shift itself that I hate the most. Although without the shift, a lot of places are going to need to be more adjustable in their schedules, because some fixed times for doing things in the summer don't make sense in the winter, and vice-versa.
If we just to back to standard time, it is easy to go back to the "old" times once and stay there forever.
I used to be pro "permanent summer time". But beyond the practical arguments above, there is a another reason.
First of all, let's be clear that the the number is arbitrary if there are no transitions.
It is stupid (as far as I can tell) that we waste the sunlight in the morning, getting more darkness at night. Switching to permanent summer time without tackling the underlying causes why are schedule shift backwards would seem to beget the same problem over again. Switching to winter time however might force us to confront the issue head on.
e.g. Maybe we need to drastically curtail light pollution and require that consumer devises have opt-out red shift (if there is more evidence for it) and curfew modes.
Keynesian time here we come!
Why can't most people wake up early instead. That's precisely what will happen once dst goes away. I still don't understand why you need to change time at all. Countries that don't have dst will never understand why you will have dst in today's day and age. It feels like a tradition you won't let go of.
But yes, we agree, it's good for it to not be dark when you go home. Not only for psychological benefit, but I would bet it would prevent a lot of accidents and crime on the way home as well.
Personally I solve this mess by just using UTC for everything. All of my schedules, computers, clocks are set to UTC.
I used to be on the DST camp, but a few years with a family and house of my own, and suddenly ST makes more sense. Then playing the game of placing oneself into somebody else’s shoes, and I realized that only young adults in rich countries really benefit from DST.
Previously it was April-October: 6/12.
Some of us IT folks lived through updating all the various TZ files, which was quite an experience since a lot of things were not designed to be updated dynamically at the time.
The distortions come from the time jump.
If we got rid of that, then the changes in the sun's key position, sunrises/sets, and shadows through-out the day would simply shift as the seasons do: gradually.
After the "final jump" people won't notice things IMHO.
The other super annoying thing about it is it created a window at the beginning and end of DST where the US is out of sync with most of Europe.
Keep the JRE/JDK the same to reduce the risk of code behaviour changes, but allow updates of the 'dynamic' data.
Circadian rhythms are based on local noon, not standard time.
West coast people don’t get it, because they are mostly in the western half of the pacific time zone. There’s a big difference in daylight between Boston and Ohio... it’s really dark in Boston (Or any other place in the eastern frontier of their time zone) in the morning during standard time.
That is, solar noon in San Francisco is pretty well lined up with civil noon or a bit later, and so DST makes it noticeably late, and our circadian rhythms prefer ending DST there. But solar noon in Boston is usually about half an hour earlier than civil time, which means that DST puts it just half an hour later instead. You have to pick one - either you're waking up half an hour earlier than your body wants, or you're staying at work half an hour later. Neither is really great.
(The best solution might be to convince businesses in Boston to shift their schedules half an hour earlier - not a full hour earlier, as permanent DST does.)
I really would like to see stats of those same events for people who have just traveled one, two or three time zones.
Maybe it's the delusion of grandeur of pretending to rule over time itself that annoys me more than the practical inconvenience.
I think since the numbers we ascribe to points in time are arbitrary, it doesn't make much sense to change them. Short term it will work to fool people. But long term, we should just mandate the concrete things we want to achive, for example:
* School should not start too early
* Evening events, Prime-time TV should not start too late
* Allow flexible working hours
Unfortunately I think we are as a society ill-equiped to make such coordinated changes across government, businesses, entertainment industry, schools and so on. Maybe the government could provide financial incentives for businesses and institutions that follow along. Large unions could push something in the next rounds of collective agreements. And maybe the idea gets enough momentum that others will follow.
If only it were that easy. Of course, you might think it's obvious, study after study shows kids and teenagers would benefit.
But you could argue another or maybe even the main function of school is to be able to offload children while the parents are at work. And flexible working hours don't work in customer-facing roles, so...
In Russia, they got rid of the DST a few years ago, but then the folks in Moscow (+0300/+0400) were really upset during the winter still living in DST's +0400 from the summer -- they'd never see the sunlight the whole day -- go to work in the dark, come back home in the dark as well. Moscow being quite North (with less sun in the winter) helped exaggerate the issue.
So, after a few years, they've had to change the time in Russia once again -- now to permanent Winter (standard time), with +0300 in Moscow.
What happened in Saratov, which would normally have had +0400/+0500 if sunset/sunrise alone were to determine the timezone? Because having Moscow Time is very convenient, it always used to follow Moscow Time, because there was only a 1h difference from the natural sunlight-based timezone. However, now the difference would be as high as 2h during the summer (+0300 from Moscow instead of +0500 from DST from +0400). So, after a few years of living with permanent +0300 from Moscow, they've finally had enough, and decided to finally abandon Moscow time, and switch to the permanent standard time more appropriate for the geography -- year-round +0400.
There's been similar issues elsewhere in Russia, which, basically, had quite a bit of the timezone map completely re-drawn during all these switchovers of the 2010s when the summer/winter time change has been abandoned.
tl;dr: in the US, we can't simply abandon DST but keep the timezones the same otherwise; we'd probably have to re-draw some parts of the whole map so that each place gets the option to align the permanent time either with the Winter or the Summer. It'll be a bit of a mess. The law in the US only lets the local folk to decide whether or not they want DST (e.g., Arizona has permanent winter time); you cannot decide to keep DST permanently (which is what the parent poster wants, or which is what the folks in Nevada want), or switch to a different timezone easily. I do hope we end up abolishing the time change; but it won't be easy; especially if we simply assume that everyone wants permanent non-DST or DST of their existing timezone.
another tl;dr: basically, in Nevada, a 1h difference from their proper sunset/sunrise timezone is fine to align themselves better with California, but if we abandon DST, then their time will be 2h off in the summer from sunset/sunrise; so, they should be allowed to keep PDT permanently, or, in other words, switch from PST/PDT to a permanent MST like Arizona, which requires US DOT approval.
Of course, because so many steps are involved, it becomes complicated to even say what you actually want.
I think it would be interesting to embrace the analog.
instead of an hour for a meeting, have a amount of time to talk about something, while people have attention with biological support.
Instead of going to bed at the same time, sort of predict when your body will get tired and have a tapering of the awake portion of your time.
And matching thinking to alertness, and relaxing to its waning might be productive and pleasurable.
Noon drifts by just over 30 minutes throughout the year, not just a few minutes.
I so want this, and doubly so in winter.
Living at 41 degrees south, I spend too many weeks in a row going to work in the dark and leaving work in the dark.
Maybe the trick is to spend the middle two weeks much further north.