Wouldn’t the simpler explanation be that we are more aware of the risks to over exposure to the sun? We certainly can use more trees but most folks spend most of their time indoors for work.
In general, perhaps especially in the US, a lot of people are more inclined to mitigate all kinds of risks today than they were a few decades ago. See also seat belts, helmets, etc. Per another comment though I don't see any evidence that extends to not even going outside and, while my dermatologist is 100% on-board with sunscreen and hats, she's never even hinted that I might spend less time outside,
No doctor tells you to never go outside in normal situations. If there are high pollution or severe weather events they will tell you stay inside for the duration. I'm sure there are others, but they are not common so it doesn't matter that I can't think of them.
However many people only go outside in the context of walking from their car to the door of wherever they are going, and some who work from home can go for weeks without going outside at all. This is a bad thing, you need exercise (though it could be inside), but realistically many people are not getting enough.
Depends on what you mean by "these days". If you ask "why do white people need sunscreen" a large part of the reason is that we evolved this skin tone in a Europe that was completely covered in forest until agriculture became widespread. If you ask "why do people wear more sunscreen than in the 50s" the answer is risk awareness. And especially in the last 10 years a much bigger awareness of the effects of skin aging.
"The peoples of Europe are fair-skinned and reddish, because they live in a cold climate and are not scorched by the sun."
Source: Hippocrates, On Airs, Waters, and Places, 5th century BC.
"The physical characteristics of the Germans are consistent: blue eyes, reddish hair, and large bodies."
(Tacitus, Germania, chapter 4)
Egyptian tomb paintings from the New Kingdom (c. 1550–1070 BC) visually represent foreign peoples with distinct skin tones - "Europeans", in the form of Sea Peoples or early Aegean peoples (e.g., Minoans or Mycenaeans), were sometimes shown with light red or pale skin tones.
The agricultural revolution was roughly 10,000 BC, wasn't it? Your sources are more recent than that, and so don't disagree with the point the parent post was making.
According to [1] more like 6000-4000 BC for Europe. Granted, that's still before 1700BC.
From a cursory study of Wikipedia my rough summary would be: Europe used to be roughly divided in the "Western Hunter Gatherers" (WHG) and "Eastern Hunter Gatherers" (EHG). The WHG typically had dark skin, dark hair and blue eyes, the EHG were typically light skinned with brown eyes. Blond hair may have originated from EHGs in North Eurasia and spread from there. Around 6000 BC farmers from Anatolia (~modern Turkey) started moving into Europe, the EEF (Early European Farmers). Those were typically smaller than European hunter-gatherers, light skinned and dark haired. They migrated North, partially replacing the EHG and WHG, partially mixing with them, and in some places the EHG and WHG simply took up farming. But Easter Europe is less amenable to farming, meaning the dark-skinned WHG diminished the most while the light-skinned EHG and EEF became the dominant groups in Europe's genetic diversity
Yes, there was an agricultural revolution during the neolithic times. We have evidence this for the Southwest Asia aka Middle East, Asia around the Yangtze and Yellow rivers, South, Central and North Americas.
I am open to this hypothesis (conjecture?), it just lacks supportive evidence. On the other hand, we have ample evidence that agricultural revolution did not "turn people white" in the other regions.
It’s actually much more that the ozone layer, which filters uv, is much thinner than it was even 60-70 years ago. The ozone layer might be growing again, but at a very slow pace.
Simple fact is, we’re much more exposed to uv than prior generations.
People are moke likely to cover themselves too much and refrain from going outside which in turns makes them vitamin D deficient which is way worse than potential UV induced cancer risks
This dietician blog on the British Heart Foundation website suggests it's wrong but partly right[0], saying "although having low levels of vitamin D is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the low vitamin D is a result of lifestyle factors that increase your risk of heart disease and stroke, rather than the cause of increased risk.".
The leading causes of death in the UK[1] are heart disease, lung cancer, influenza, dementia, vascular disease (stroke?) and lower respiratory disease. Skin cancer is 1% of cancer deaths, and for melanoma the peak of diagnosis is people 85-89 years old[2]. Considering average life expectancy, people are generally diagnosed with skin cancer a few years after they die.
The partial claim "refrain from going outside which in turn .. is way worse than potential UV induced cancer risks" could be right. Avoiding exercise and increasing your heart disease risk, in the hope that you'll avoid one of the more treatable and less fatal cancers in very late life, is probably the wrong tradeoff. Not to do with Vitamin D or covering up or suncream though. Still, why not do both - cover up and go out, lower heart disease risk and lower your chances of skin cancer diagnosis in late life.
How many people have you heard dying of skin cancer vs other cancers around you? High Vitamin D levels have shown over and over again to decrease the risk of serious cancers (the littérature is abundant).
Melanoma causes 1.5 % of total cancers related deaths according to CDC so you are much more likely to die from all the other types of cancer. https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/#/Trends/
