LEDs are soulless

This page was created 10/09/25

Work in progress. The plan is for this article to be a description on why LEDs are bad, how to avoid them, replacements, etc.

This article was originally written in response to the question: "which technology has most negatively impacted the world and society" and "what single technology would I get rid of if I had the chance". Hence I started thinking about things that have recently affected society negatively; I decided you could effectively model these things as chains linking to a root cause:

So the statement I am making in this article is: LEDs are soulless, have fuelled the destruction of the planet and are the architect of a downfall of society.

Lighting is all around us at all times. So the way we produce and use light is very important.

What are LEDs

LEDs are an unnatural light source created by passing electricity through a special type of diode. While most other light forms are created by heat (the sun, halogen lamps), LEDs are created by electricity only. This means that they create unnatural light. LEDs essentially mimic normal incandescent light in form and function but are a fake replica of the "traditional" light created by heat.

LED lights flicker at twice the mains power frequency, so either 50x2 = 100hz or 60x2 = 120hz. Most bulbs have driver and smoothing circuits built in, which reduces the flicker effect by increasing the frequency at which thebulbs flicker to 1-20khz. This is obviously really bad for our eyes and health. The argument that incandescent/halogen bulbs flicker at 50/60hz due to power frequencies is easily refutable because the filament does not have enough time to cool down in 1/60th of a second. If the frequency was closer to 20hz, that could be a problem. This is easily observed on any filament lamp. Just try turning it off and see how long it takes to cool down and stop emitting light.

Why LEDs are bad

Low colour temperature LEDs do not fix the problem - they are still unnatural light.

Why are other types of lighting better

Now you know what LEDs are and why they suck. But why are other types of lighting better?

Athmospheres

We also used to have a very diverse set of lighting used: incadescent, sodium vapour, mercury, arc, gas, neon, etc. This led to different atmospheres depending on the method of lighting used: you had cool neon lights for a futuristic atmosphere in the city, sodium vapour lamps used on highways - creating a nice evening drive home, and so on. Atmospheres are really important and can also enhance your memories of certain places. I remember driving home late at night after a holiday with family with that distinct orange glow emitted from the street lamps.

Evils made possible by LEDs

They are the reason why both small and large flat panels exist. Previously, there existed only medium sized flat panels (plasma), which did not enable advanced modern phones, advertisement boards, and so on.

Advertisement boards are probably one of the most infuriating uses of LEDs. I don't mind the concept of advertising - it can be a good way (in a capitalist society) to advertise your business or product, when the traditional word of mouth method does not suffice. But modern advertisement overreach and the technologies used to fuel this enrage me. Looking at modern advertisement boards, we see that they are made out of very high power output LED screens. Some of these are even mounted on cars which are then powered by diesel generators (whatever happened to the "environmental benefit" of LED's?). Walking around at night and even during the day past one of these screens is eye searing and also attracts all the bugs which hover around these screens. Whereas previously, advertisements would have been displayed on a sheet of paper with possibly a row of CCFL tubes as a backlight. This goes beyond the scope of this article and I guess I will make another article about this, but advertisements through the internet are a whole different breed.

Through car LEDs (far too bright and far too high colour temperature), city lighting (destroys the natural environment and wildlife), household lighting (soulless colours and kills your eyesight and sleep pattern, obviously can lower colour temperature but that doesn't matter), we see that LEDs destroy out wildlife, sleep patterns, everything really.

They disrupt our lives and nature

Health

LEDs destroy out circarian rhythm.

Nature

Things I have personally experienced:

Environment, efficiency

LEDs are supposedly better for the environment yet they harm not only the actual wildlife but also our body and mind.

Has anyone realistically seen a drop in energy prices following the adoption of LEDs? I don't think so! Supposedly, New York (or another city, see 4chan thread) saved "14 million dollars" by switching to LEDs. But this probably only factors in the energy costs and not the actual cost of the bulbs, which typically cost more than the sodium vapour equivalent. And really, this cost reduction amounts to $2 per head (considering taxes are spread out equally, which they are not, so realistically the top taxpayers would pay a little more and ordinary peoples would pay less than a dollar) - not a significant cost - which I suppose many people would pay. I guess this article could be linked to another one about how we are being misled about energy prices and usage. Using LEDs at home instead of an incandescent is not going to "save the planet", even if the entire planet somehow switched (as has pretty much already been done). Net energy usage is still rising - and fast. Data centres, a boom in consumption and the delayed clean energy transition are all harming the planet more than incandescent bulbs or other less "efficient" technologies ever could. The hypocrisy is that people will gladly empty a water reservoir by using AI but will not use a lamp which benefits their health and the ecosystems around us. And the argument that if "everyone saved a bit of energy by using LEDs" is total bogus, as household energy usage does not even contribute much at all to the total energy consumption. (Source needed)

How long they last compared to incandescent? Energy efficiency?

The economic and capitalist perspective

Diggy's "How money and the profit motive destroy everything" explains this well: We are destroying the environment, our health, and many other things for a barely measurable cost saving. There are a plethora of different solutions to stopping climate change and saving money.

Why are governments banning the sales of filament bulbs, CCFL tubes, etc?

How to avoid and replacements

A promising technology which may be a viable solution to the problem of computer monitors is eink. It is currently still very expensive and being developed, but it looks like it doesnt need any LEDs to drive it, possibly only being used as an optional backlight. Another promising alternative, although relatively expensive ($600), is the incandescent backlit LCD display.

LEDs are technologically superior but sometimes a technologically superior product is not better for us.

You can comment on and discuss this article via The Cyberix Network.

Feel free to share ideas by contacting me.

Back to the front page