Artificial light is so superior to natural light in many respects that mankind has acquired the habit of retiring many hours after darkness has fallen, a result of which has brought forth the issue known as “daylight saving.” Doubtless, daylight should be used whenever possible, but there are two sides to the question. In the first place, it costs something to bring daylight indoors. The architectural construction of windows and skylights increases the cost of daylight. Light-courts, by sacrificing valuable floor-area, add to the expense. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The maintenance of windows and sky lights is an appreciable item. Considering these and other factors, it can be seen that daylight indoors is expensive; and as it is also undependable, a supplementary system of artificial lighting is generally necessary. In fact, it is easy to show in some cases that artificial lighting is cheaper than natural lighting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The average middle-class home is now lighted artificially for about\n$15.00 to $25.00 per year, with convenient light-sources which are\navailable at all times. There is no item in the household budget which\nreturns as much satisfaction, comfort, and happiness in proportion to\nits cost as artificial light. It is an artistic medium of great\npotentiality, and light in a narrow utilitarian sense is always a\nby-product of artistic lighting. The insignificant cost of modern\nlighting may be emphasized in many ways. The interest on the investment\nin a picture or a vase which cost $25.00 will usually cover the cost of\noperating any decorative lamp in the home. A great proportion of the\ninvestment in personal property in a home is chargeable to an attempt to\nbeautify the surroundings. The interest on only a small portion of this\ninvestment will pay for artistic and utilitarian artificial lighting in\nthe home. The cost of washing the windows of the average house may be as\ngreat as the cost of artificial lighting and is usually at least a large\nfraction of the latter. It would become monotonous to cite the various\nexamples of the insignificant cost of artificial light and its high\nreturn to the user. The example of the home has been chosen because the\nreader may easily carry the analysis further. The industries where costs\nare analyzed are now looking upon adequate and proper lighting as an\nasset which brings in profits by increasing production, by decreasing\nspoilage, and by decreasing the liability of accidents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Inasmuch as daylight saving became an issue during the recent war and is\nlikely to remain a matter of concern, its history is interesting. One of\nthe outstanding differences between primitive and civilized beings is\ntheir hours of activities. The former automatically adjusted themselves\nto daylight, but as civilization advanced, the span of activities began\nto extend more and more beyond the coming of darkness. Finally in many\nactivities the work-day was extended to twenty-four hours. There can be\nno insurmountable objection to working at night with a proper\narrangement of the periods of work; in fact, the cost of living would\nbe greatly increased if the overhead charges represented by such items\nas machinery and buildings were allowed to be carried by the decreased\nproducts of a shortened period of production. There cannot be any basic\nobjection to artificial lighting, because most factories, for example,\nmay be better illuminated by artificial than by natural light.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Of course, the lag of comfortable temperature behind daylight is\nresponsible to some extent for a natural shifting of the ordinary\nworking-day somewhat behind the sun. The chill of dawn tends to keep\nmankind in bed and the cheer of artificial light and the period of\nrecreation in the evening tends to keep the civilized races out of bed.\nThere are powerful influences always at work and despite the desirable\nfeatures of daylight-saving, mankind will always tend to lag. As years\ngo by, doubtless it will be necessary to make the shift again and again.\nIt seems certain that throughout the centuries thoughtful persons have\nseen the difficulty of rousing man from his warm bed in the early\nmorning and have recognized a simple solution in turning the hands of\nthe clock ahead. Among the earliest advocates of daylight saving during\nmodern times, when it became important enough to be considered as an\neconomic issue, was Benjamin Franklin. In 1784 he wrote a masterful\nserio-comic essay entitled “An Economical Project” which was published\nin the Journal<\/em> of Paris.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Artificial light is so superior to natural light in many respects that mankind has acquired the habit of retiring many hours after darkness has fallen, a result of which has brought forth the issue known as “daylight saving.” Doubtless, daylight should be used whenever possible, but there are two sides to the question. In the … <\/p>\n