3 ms·
A gigantic source of light in the sky that lights up a part of the Earth and is too bright to look at is... the sun. I think we're all used to the sun.
by csallen 3mo ago
A gigantic source of light in the sky that lights up a part of the Earth and is too bright to look at is... the sun. I think we're all used to the sun.
- pastel8739 3mo agoI personally am _not_ used to seeing the sun after sunset and before sunrise.
- dnel 3mo agoNeither is nature, this sounds like an environmental disaster waiting to happen
- jack_pp 3mo agoconsidering plants grow just fine with grow lights, they don't really care. same with co2, they LOVE CO2
- iamacyborg 3mo agoNature is more than just plants.
- jurgenburgen 3mo ago> they LOVE CO2 Plants can absorb some more CO2 and it improves their growth slightly but saying they LOVE CO2 is an exaggeration.
- KeplerBoy 3mo agoThey turn it into sugar, what's not to love?
- csallen 3mo agoSolar panels aren't nature. Shining lights on solar panels is not going to be an environmental disaster.
- _vertigo 3mo agoeveryone’s seen ads before, mind if I put a giant ad in the sky for everyone to look at?
- digitaltrees 3mo agoIf one person owned the sun and could charge all humanity for access to its light then maybe that would be a relevant example
- csallen 3mo agoWhat do you think is being proposed, exactly? Some sort of alternative sun that's going to shine on the entire earth, that we'll all be forced to look at?
- digitaltrees 3mo agoNo. I used a rhetorical device to highlight a theoretical monopoly we assume would never exist. But imagine I launch a space sail that can cast a shadow on any part of earth I chose. I could block or unblock sunlight at will and grant access only for paying customers. Is that something that should be permitted?