[csallen]

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]

I personally am _not_ used to seeing the sun after sunset and before sunrise.

[dnel]

Neither is nature, this sounds like an environmental disaster waiting to happen

[jack_pp]

considering plants grow just fine with grow lights, they don't really care. same with co2, they LOVE CO2

[iamacyborg]

Nature is more than just plants.

[jurgenburgen]

> they LOVE CO2

Plants can absorb some more CO2 and it improves their growth slightly but saying they LOVE CO2 is an exaggeration.

[KeplerBoy]

They turn it into sugar, what's not to love?

[csallen]

Solar panels aren't nature. Shining lights on solar panels is not going to be an environmental disaster.

[_vertigo]

everyone’s seen ads before, mind if I put a giant ad in the sky for everyone to look at?

[orlp]

Don't give these ghouls ideas.

[fragmede]

The idea of putting a PepsiCo or Coca-Cola ad on the moon dates backs to the 60's, when we first went there.

[digitaltrees]

If one person owned the sun and could charge all humanity for access to its light then maybe that would be a relevant example

[csallen]

What 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]

No. 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?