Is it ethical to use the sun faster than it could be replaced?

That's a tough question, but only philosophically. As an engineer and a

pragmatist, I'm more intrigued by the question's absurdity. I leave it to

the philosophers to decide whether a question that postulates two big

fat affronts to logic even constitutes a question, and for myself, I'll only

point out what they are:

1). We do not "use" the sun. The sun does its own thing, over which we have

no control whatsoever, and after it has done its thing, a tiny, virtually negligible

fraction of the resulting wreckage is propelled in our direction. Some of it is

"used" in natural ways that are governed by the laws of chemistry and physics,

of which we are largely unaware, and the effect is that we have continued to

live, eat, evolve, breathe and breed for the past several thousand years. In

the most recent twinkling of an eye, we have learned how to do more stuff by

using more of it, but it's still nothing but a negligible fraction of what's left over

after the sun has done its thing, and whether we use that or don't use it has

no effect on the sun whatsoever. The sun is through with it. We might just as

well consider it a gift, and learn to use more of it rather than rape our planet.

2). The rate at which the sun could be replaced is no issue. It can't be.

When it's used up, the flame will go out, and eventually the plot light too.