This article is not to be read lightly. In fact, I recommend that it be read strictly via artificial lighting. If you have an uncovered window, it might be best to move away or throw up a curtain. If it’s nighttime, though, you should be fine. The Sun probably can’t read backwards.

There are a plethora of ideas which are accepted by modern society despite being entirely untrue. Among these: “Being realistic requires negativity”; “Statistics measure objective truths”; “We only use 10% of our brains”; “People who aren’t like you are responsible for your problems”. There is one sentiment, however, that is even more insidious than these beliefs, and it is the conception in human culture of the Sun as a force of good, the benevolent caregiver of humanity. In fact, our survival under the Sun’s dominion is a struggle against it. Any benefits it provides us are merely incidental to the manners in which it does us harm. If we are to win this war against the Sun, we must first acknowledge the necessity of fighting it.

One of the most common pro-sun arguments is that sunlight is necessary for the flourishing of life on Earth. Well, if the Sun’s light is so important, then why does it hurt to look at? Imagine if water hurt to drink, and also gave you cancer if you drank too much of it. Both water and sunlight are important to life on Earth, but only one is intrinsically harmful to consume. Sure, water can have harmful bacteria and particulate matter in it, but water itself is not in and of itself a damaging thing. Mere exposure to sunlight, however, causes all manner of ailments, ranging from blindness to premature aging. 

Now, this wouldn’t be as much a problem if the Sun had the decency to only shine for one or two hours per day. After all, the main benefit of sunlight to human beings, Vitamin D production, can’t be easily replicated with artificial light sources. Two hours of sun per day might not seem like a lot, but the WHO’s recommended sun exposure is under one hour per week. Of course, fourteen hours is more than one, but a fourteen-hour solar week would give everyone plenty of time to achieve the sun exposure necessary for healthy living. The question of how to achieve this lofty goal will be examined later in this article, but it is nonetheless important to keep in mind that less sunlight is, on the whole, desirable. 

We have heretofore been afforded a natural measure of protection against the Sun’s wrath. Our atmosphere’s ozone layer absorbs much of the harmful ultraviolet radiation produced by the sun, sparing us from the worst of its detrimental health effects. However, the ozone layer is decaying, especially around the poles. This ozone depletion, which largely results from the emission of certain human-manufactured chemicals (e.g. dichlorodifluoromethane) and their byproducts, is reducing the ozone layer’s ability to protect us from the sun. Fortunately, the internationally-ratified Montreal Protocol has taken action to reduce the production of these manufactured chemicals, and has had some success, such as the substantial alleviation of the Antarctic Ozone Hole, a region of the atmosphere over Antarctica with periodically decimated ozone levels as a result of the presence of ozone-depleting chemicals combined with extreme annual weather cycles. However, these policies, even if rigidly continued, will not return us to preprotocol levels worldwide for several decades. And between corporate opposition and noncompliance within certain countries (no doubt due to the influence of solar plants), these deadlines are unlikely to be met. 

In an era where our governments refuse to do anything substantial to counter this greatest threat to humanity, the impetus must originate with our generation. Our school is home to many of the bright minds which will go on to determine the future course of our planet. We must be careful not to fall into resigned acceptance of the world’s ills like the generations before us have, we must have the courage to say, “‘this is how things are’ is not a good reason not to change them,” we must have the ingenuity to work beyond our differences for the common good. The Sun has burned away in our sky since the beginning of our history, but we have heretofore been blindly preoccupied with lesser matters. We are Americans, born of the defeat of a tyrant thousands of miles away; now we must seek the defeat of a tyrant one hundred million miles away. We must not rest until we have banished this wretched solar despot from our beloved Earth.

Some students suggestions for how to rid us of this troublesome star: 

Have a big umbrella like over Springfield in Who Killed Mr Burns? [sic]”

• Henry Serano

Like uh, I don’t know, what are they called, like, a Dyson Sphere?

• Jack Serano

“Frozone”

• Zuriel Nyamutsaka

“Attack it at night”

• Jack Tierny 

“Just, like, shoot a laser at it”

• Saiana Elkins

Personally, I have several concepts for an antisolar weapon which I will not disclose here (lest my plans reach the eyes of some nefarious solar sympathizer), but I believe it equally imperative that we establish short-term defenses which will allow us to alleviate a few of the crises facing us on the Sun’s account. This defense solution would come in the form of an orbital array of metal plates and artificial lights (facing Earthwards). Think of the basic concept like a giant metal eyelid, which would be able to move between partial and full encirclement of the Earth (the eyeball in this analogy) and coordinate its lights to maintain artificial daylight on the surface. This would allow for moderation of the amount of natural sunlight reaching the surface, achieving the aforementioned fourteen-hour solar week, or even day-to-day adjustments in sun exposure. In addition to the contraction of sunlight hours, it would also allow for their effective extension in regions where it would be desirable, via artificial light. Finally, it would also shield the Earth against solar flares, which can threaten utilities and communications on the planet, in a regular but infrequently-acknowledged plot by the Sun. Defense must not be the end of our efforts against the sun, but it must be our first priority.

I hope that this article will inspire a new wave of resistance against this solar tyranny. As a friend of mine would say, “the Sun’s gotta go!”