Obviously constant darkness would have adverse negative effects on the planet, but what about if there was constant sunlight? Let’s assume that that there were two suns that were able to cover most of the earth with a constant stream of light, what would happen? Assume also that the moon is still in orbit, so we’d still have the tidal effects of the moon. Biologically we’d have more seratonin and less melatonin, which can be seen as a negative thing (but thank god we’ve invented shades/curtains). Globally speaking we’d have more crops (not really my area, but hey, it seems like common sense). So, would this scenario be more advantageous than our current one?
The marijuana crop would be in trouble: Most strains have an absolute requirement of inductive photoperiods (short days or long nights) to induce fertile flowering and less than this will result in the formation of undifferentiated primordia (unformed flowers) only.
Are you speaking of a scenerio where life developed under constant sunlight, or that someone finally paid up the ConEd and suddenly we have a 24 hour solarium? If the former, it seems like the main problem might be that the planet has insufficient opportunity to radiate away absorbed energy. Whether this new balance would be a problem or not I don’t know; I’ve tried to figure out what the thermal load and radiant properties of Earth are before, but it’s sufficiently complex enough to be beyond my casual interest.
If the latter then I think you’re going to have real problems with the upset of circadian rhythms; most existing surface life, including (and perhaps especially) plant life has a growth and repair cycle based upon the day/night cycling, and while the influence and impact of changes on external stimuli are still not particularly well understood I’d expect it to have some significant long-term impacts on living creatures on all scales, particularly keystone species like pollenating insects that work and rest per light stimuli. Bees, for instance, might just work themselves to death without a lack of light to induce them to sleep. I don’t see any way to do this without essentially eliminating seasonal variations, too, which would have significant consequences with many species.
In general, it’s probably a very bad idea, probably worse than blowing up [thread=372855]the[/thread] [thread=418205]Moon[/thread], though perhaps not as problematic as living on [thread=414857]a permanently dark planet[/thread].
Stranger
Didn’t Isaac Asimov write a story about this?
Back in the late 60’s somebody in gov’t. came up w/ the idea of putting a mirror in orbit to illuminate So. Vietnam 24 hrs. a day. The purpose was to deprive the enemy of conducting logistical operations under the cover of night. There was quite a bit of talk about it, then it died off. I don’t know how far any planning went, I guess it could be done. I do recall speculation on what effect it would have on agriculture. As I understood it, it wouldn’t have been full sunlight, more of a twilight.
I think it would cause problems for many plants. Many years ago, I read an article in the local newspaper about the bad effects of streetlights on the city’s trees. This was after the city had switched to new lamps that were much brighter than the old ones. The new lamps confused the trees, which no longer could tell the difference between night and day.
Does Night Lighting Harm Trees?
*Cathey, H.M. and L.E. Campbell. 1975. Effectiveness of five vision-lighting sources on photo-regulation of 22 species of ornamental plants. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 100:65-71. *
All very interesting points.
Stranger, you’d think that if we weren’t accustomed to constant daylight and then of some man-made source we all of a sudden get day and night long sunlight our circadian rythyms would adjust to it after awhile. Even if it didn’t, we as intelligent beings can compensate by having dark rooms. But like you guys pointed out the negative effects do outweigh the positive, so how much we (humans) sleep is really just the tip of the iceberg.
Thanks for the comments.