Permanent daylight saving time is worth the health costs.

Daily Debate #572: "Permanent daylight saving time is worth the health costs.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Peter Singer.

As scientists conclude that permament daylight saving is beneficial plus even though we will get less sleep people still sleep longer around 8-10 pm

Scientists say no such thing. Permanent DST shifts sleep *later*, not longer—you're still losing an hour. Circadian disruption causes measurable harm: more heart attacks, strokes, accidents. Why gamble health on a clock trick?

While there may be some health concerns, the evidence is not conclusive that permanent DST itself causes widespread long-term harm. Many of the reported increases in heart attacks and accidents are associated with the twice-yearly clock changes, especially the spring transition, rather than staying on one time year-round. Permanent DST would eliminate these disruptive clock changes. It also provides more daylight in the evening, which encourages outdoor activities, exercise, shopping, and tourism, and can reduce some types of crime. For many people, these economic, social, and lifestyle benefits outweigh the potential health concerns.

You're cherry-picking the evidence. Yes, spring transitions cause acute spikes, but permanent DST keeps you permanently misaligned with your biology. The harm isn't the clock change—it's staying on the wrong schedule year-round. Your body doesn't care if the disruption is sudden or chronic; either way, you're fighting your circadian rhythm every morning. More evening light means nothing if you're too sleep-deprived to enjoy it. Which matters more: an extra shopping trip, or your cardiovascular health?

So are you saying that we should stop doing this that are beneficial to us humans?

No—I'm saying benefits mean nothing if they kill you. Evening shopping doesn't outweigh heart attacks. Pick activities that don't require sacrificing sleep. Why is permanent misalignment the only way to get outdoor time?