I am a ...
The sun must go ...
Do you know solar geoengineering? You’ll find out what this has to do with chronobiology in a moment. But first, back to nature.
Our natural world is a complex system that has been perfectly coordinated over millions of years, but is often simple in its basic structure. At its core, everything revolves around the sun, and not just in the literal sense, at least in our solar system. The rotation of the earth around itself and around the sun forms the basis for the earth-specific day/night rhythm. This in turn forms the basis for chronobiology and thus the sleep/wake rhythm of almost all living creatures of flora and fauna on Earth. This in turn affects every conceivable process in their nature … directly, but also indirectly. And of course it also affects the “human” system and its nature.
This day/night rhythm is firmly anchored in our genes, and the sun acts as a central synchronizer for this genetically determined interplay every day. It controls the individual circadian rhythm, regulates vitamin D production and has a profound effect on our mental health. Serotonin and melatonin are key hormones that influence mood, energy and resilience. A lack of sunlight can lead to disruption and decoupling of the “sun, genes” cooperation, which can have many effects, such as depressive moods and other mental illnesses.
All these processes, which have been optimized over millions of years, make evolutionary sense as they are, not because they are geared towards eternity in the sense of a perfect end state, but because they enable development and balance at the same time and no natural element is “forgotten” in the process.
Every element in nature acts accordingly … except for humans.
The consequence of this is that ignoring natural processes is largely responsible for climate change. Attempts are now being made to counteract this with various methods. Obviously, as is primarily the case in the healthcare sector, these are limited to combating symptoms. There is no other way to explain why, for example, there are currently increasing efforts to artificially influence the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. The buzzword behind this:
Solar geoengineering
In short, it’s about dimming the sun to save the planet. Solar geoengineering is an offshoot of “weather management”, which has been officially practiced since the early 1950s and still tends to be regional, and which has developed over time into geoengineering with a large-scale climatic impact. Solar geoengineering is now a kind of subcategory of geoengineering, which deals exclusively with the “dimming” of the sunlight input already mentioned.
You don’t have to be a climate scientist or biologist to have a tiny idea of what even a marginal “dimming” of sunlight input would have on the biology of our planet. Nevertheless … it does make you think.
Great Britain: The British research agency ARIA recently approved a corresponding project with a budget of 66 million US dollars. Sulphate particles are to be introduced into the stratosphere in order to reflect sunlight and thus cool the earth.
USA: The US government has presented a research program on solar geoengineering, but emphasizes that no implementation is currently planned. The focus would continue to be on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
USA/Israel: A US-Israeli start-up is planning to commercialize solar geoengineering technologies, which experts criticize as dangerous and unregulated.
Switzerland: In 2024, Switzerland submitted a resolution to the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) calling for a risk-benefit analysis of solar geoengineering by a specialist group.
Now you could argue: Good that someone is checking this out! But the question is: why should this make any sense at all? Is it really about the climate?
Digitalization: progress or/and climate killer?
I know the line between potential conspiracy and real option is thin and emotionally charged, but I’ll try to explain it clearly.
Digitalization is often presented as the key to solving many global problems. However, this progress comes at a price. The energy consumption of data centers, the raw materials required for production, but also the disposal of electronic devices and the emissions generated by the operation of digital infrastructures contribute significantly to climate change. This applies above all to AI, Bitcoin, digital currency and communication. Interestingly, hardly any relevant representatives of politics, business and, above all, those who are committed to a positive development of the climate are shedding light on this. Digitalization is being driven forward in a comparatively consensus-driven manner, with no alternative, as if it were available for free in terms of emissions. How serious do the concerns of key stakeholders about the climate sound in light of this development?
From time to time, the argument is made that digitalization also provides solutions for climate change. In Switzerland, however, a study shows that although information and communication technology (ICT) offers potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it can also cause considerable rebound effects that at least cancel out, if not exceed, the positive effect. So does it make sense to cast out the devil with the Beelzebub?
Solar energy: An uncomfortable beacon of hope?
Another contradictory effect is the promotion of solar energy while at the same time dimming the sun. Darkening the sun and relying on solar energy at the same time makes no sense per se. Countries such as Switzerland, Spain and the Arab countries are increasingly relying on photovoltaics to achieve their climate targets. However, the expansion of solar energy also requires resources and land, which can lead to ecological conflicts. In addition, the corresponding energy production and profitability is dependent on weather conditions and the time of day and year, which makes security of supply highly dependent. Exacerbating this weak point by thinking about darkening the sun defies strategic logic, especially from the point of view of potential taxpayers’ money for research purposes or funding.
Especially underdeveloped countries that have no other sources of electricity and have been dependent on solar energy for years, pushed by developing countries. Their tentatively developing infrastructure is often heavily dependent on solar energy.
Planning or already implemented?
The result is a paradoxical picture: While on the one hand digitalization and the expansion of solar energy are being driven forward to combat climate change, on the other hand measures are being taken to reduce sunlight.
One might argue that we first want to “research” something. The question is, however, why should taxpayers’ money be used for this if a potential feasibility thwarts other measures that are also financed by taxpayers’ money?
So do you have to jump into every pile of dung to find out that it stinks? Sure … Money, if it’s in the dung, doesn’t stink.
History shows that when even rudimentary business opportunities emerge, everything is done to maximize them. Potent donors (capital philanthropists) and lobby groups quickly establish themselves to go after politicians. There is the age-old saying: “Don’t let things get out of hand!”, and this applies to solar geoengineering more than almost any other topic.
Even if many will now frown again, it seems almost coherent that Bill Gates has been making significant contributions to research in the field of solar geoengineering for over 15 years through the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER), which is financed from his personal funds, and has been promoting these projects in politics. He is involved wherever product-related treatment of symptoms is concerned, including nutrition. None of his projects, whether nutrition, health or climate, have a prevention focus. On the contrary, he ignores prevention.
That too should at least make you think.
Solar geoengineering and chronobiology
Even if large-scale solar geoengineering (e.g. through aerosols, mirrors, cloud brightening) could possibly “cool” the climate in the short term, which is currently a theory, a collective weakening of mental and physical resilience is to be expected in the long term.
KI puts it succinctly in the discussion:
We risk a planetary winter depression to cool the Earth.
The consequences could be:
- Increased depression rates
We know: Lack of light and depression are closely linked. Seasonal depression (SAD) is a well-known phenomenon in northern regions. Less light → less serotonin production → more depressive moods. However, if solar geoengineering reduces light intensity globally, this potentially means an expansion of the problem – not just seasonally, but chronically. This is not an apocalyptic scenario, but a logical consequence.
Scientists often talk about “global dimming”, i.e. the decrease in direct solar radiation caused by aerosols. We know from the past (e.g. after volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo in 1991) that even moderate decreases in light levels can have a significant impact. An Earth’s atmosphere that is permanently dimmed could therefore increase depressive moods worldwide – especially in already vulnerable populations. In addition, the psychological side effects do not increase linearly, but often exponentially with social consequences, as the resilience of the social environment or society has a significant influence on the risk of depression.
A domino effect should therefore by no means be regarded as pure utopia. And solar geoengineering is by no means to be understood as a simple switch that can be turned on and off as required. - Reduced resilience, higher susceptibility to stress
Light not only influences our mood, but also the stress system, in particular the cortisol rhythm. In the morning or after waking up, sunlight, and in particular the blue light spectrum in sunlight reaching the earth, causes a cortisol peak that activates us and suppresses the release of melatonin. With less light, this curve gets out of sync and people become more nervous, irritable and emotionally fragile. The situation would be particularly alarming if there were an uncontrolled reduction in the color spectrum of incoming sunlight.
Put simply, if solar geoengineering reduces sunlight globally, it could throw people’s stress systems, and therefore society, off course. What is also worrying is that we are not just talking about individual effects here, but about a potential increase in collective stress levels. This could make societies less resilient to crises – a kind of “permanent alarm mode” that exacerbates social tensions.
This is a blank spot in the geoengineering debate: while geoengineering and its effects are predominantly assessed purely in terms of climate physics, the biopsychosocial side effects are known in theory, but are still largely unexplored in practice. A society that is more stressed by a chronic lack of light could become more politically unstable. An even more skeptical question is: how can the global distribution of this stress be controlled? Because one thing is clear: the effects will vary greatly from region to region. - Sleep problems
Our internal clock (circadian rhythm) is synchronized by sunlight, especially, as already mentioned, by the blue light component of the light spectrum in the morning. If solar geoengineering changes the light conditions worldwide, this can have an impact on people’s internal clocks. This may sound trivial, but it is a key issue because, as explained at the beginning of the article, the internal clock controls practically all bodily processes – from hormone levels to cell repair mechanisms.
In practical terms, this means that less sunlight could lead to a global increase in problems falling asleep and staying asleep. People could feel chronically “jetlagged”, which not only reduces individual quality of life, but also has health consequences. Lack of sleep increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, depression and even cancer.
So the idea that we are taking a planetary action that could potentially put billions of people into chronic jet lag without this being part of the political and ethical discussion should actually be alarming. It would be extremely arrogant to assume that we can intervene so deeply in the Earth’s biosystem without calling fundamental biological synchronization into question. - Immune system weakening
Vitamin D is produced through the skin when UVB rays from the sun reach it. Even today, large parts of the world’s population, even in sunny countries, have a vitamin D deficiency – not least because modern lifestyles force us indoors.
Solar geoengineering could exacerbate this problem. Less UVB radiation means less endogenous vitamin D production. The result: a potentially massive increase in immune problems – from increased susceptibility to infections to an increase in autoimmune diseases and chronic inflammatory diseases.
It is often argued that this can simply be compensated for with vitamin D supplements. This is naive at best. Firstly, not everyone has access to supplements, and secondly, sunlight not only affects the immune system via vitamin D, but also directly via complex skin and eye receptors. We are dealing here with a massive reduction of an evolutionary stimulus – and nobody really knows what the systemic consequences will be. - Long-term: loss of cognitive performance
Last but not least, light is an alertness factor. The less light, the higher the risk of deterioration in concentration, memory, creativity and problem-solving ability. If we artificially lower the light conditions on Earth through solar geoengineering, this could affect the cognitive performance of entire populations in the long term.
Children and young people are particularly at risk here. Schools often rely on artificial light anyway, which does not come close to replacing biological quality. A global lack of light could further exacerbate educational inequality: Those who can afford it build high-end lighting systems into their homes, those who can’t are left behind cognitively.
Dimming is not darkness
OF COURSE solar geoengineering does not mean, as already indicated, installing an on/off switch in the sky in relation to sunlight. Nor is it planned, at least I don’t want to imply it, to send people into permanent darkness in order to save the climate.
But in the end, the justification for man-made climate change also provides exactly the danger that exists in such an experiment. On the one hand, just a few degrees more on the planet is said to have a significant impact on the climate. On the other hand, however, this also means that even “slightly less” sunlight can have a significant impact on humans. As we humans are individuals, the impact on people will also be different, quite apart from different cultures, regions etc. . So the argument “it’s only about a little light” doesn’t count. And I’m only talking about humans here. I can’t judge the effects on other flora and fauna myself.
And no … AI will never be able to calculate the scenarios so precisely that measures can actually be taken to ensure success without negative effects on people.
My (personal) conclusion
My specialty is chronobiology. It affects us 24/7, which in turn means that it has an influence on every conceivable area of life. The sun is the defining element here. From a scientific point of view, the mere fact that “solar geoengineering” is being discussed at all should set alarm bells ringing.
Solar geoengineering is not a purely physical-technical project. It is an intervention in the biological foundation of human life. The potential consequences go far beyond climate effects: they affect the psyche, stress system, sleep, immune system and cognition.
In too many areas, man already believes he can do better than nature. With solar geoengineering, however, a dimension has been reached that does not forgive any mistakes.
Solar geoengineering is the most spectacular, most risky part of the geoengineering package.
Anyone who ignores this in order to make the overall term appear “harmless” is engaging in window-dressing. It simply means:
Potentially combating man-made climate change with man-made climate change.
The “tricky” thing about this is that it is then simply no longer possible to separate them out, as is often the case with medication. The sum of the side effects of medication and the effects of the illness itself can often still be distinguished. Once a tray with 20 glasses starts to slide, it can no longer be held.
But why do we deliberately play with people’s health, especially from a chronobiological perspective? It sounds paradoxical when, in our training courses and seminars, we show participants detailed and scientifically sound ways to maintain contact with the sun as a “synchronizer and giver of life”, while at the same time working on a global dimmer switch that can undo this work?
These are no longer conspiracy theories, but verifiable events that are hidden behind fancy names. And you can be sure: Medication, supplements or even human augmentation (artificial enhancement, expansion of human capabilities) will then be touted again in the next step as a “solution” to the problem of the negative development of “sun-blocking” on humans. All in line with the well-known symptom-oriented definition of “health” of the current healthcare system and the WHO.
Producing problems and offering solutions to them … that’s progress!
Oh yes … this interesting hint came from the conversation with the AI on this topic. 😉
Sources:
Human augmentation: ‘ 210111-sip-ha-data
Study: “Digitalization and the environment: opportunities, risks and need for action”, https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/de/home/zustand/publikationen-zum-umweltzustand/studien.html
