What we are finding out now is that there are not only limits to growth but also to technology and that we cannot allow technology to go on without public consent.
Perhaps most ridiculous of all is the suggestion that we 'keep' our radioactive garbage for the use of our descendants. This 'solution', I think, requires an immediate poll of the next 20,000 generations.
Interpretation
What this quote means
The quote critiques the idea of leaving radioactive waste for future generations, highlighting the absurdity of such a solution.
David R. Brower expresses skepticism regarding the suggestion to store radioactive waste for future generations to manage. He emphasizes the impracticality and irresponsibility of such a notion, suggesting that it would require a consultation with future generations—many of them—who may not have the tools or context to deal with the implications of this hazardous material. The quote serves as a warning against complacency in environmental responsibilities.
Themes
In practice
Example use cases
In a debate about environmental policy, one might say this quote to illustrate the long-term consequences of our actions on future generations.
More from David R. Brower
All quotes →Is the minor convenience of allowing the present generation the luxury of doubling its energy consumption every 10 years worth the major hazard of exposing the next 20,000 generations to this lethal waste?
Without wilderness, the world's a cage.
To me, a wilderness is where the flow of wildness is essentially uninterrupted by technology; without wilderness the world is a cage.
Similar quotes
Basic research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing.
I would say the biggest handicap we have right now is some nutcases in our country that don't believe in global warming. I think they are going to change their position because of pressure from individuals, because the evidence of the ravages of global warming is already there.
The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on...
Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.
In the past, geneticists have looked at so-called disease genes, but a lot of people have changes in their genes and don't get these diseases. There have to be other parts of physiology and genetics that compensate.
Everything great in science and art is simple. What can be less complicated than the greatest discoveries of humanity - gravitation, the compass, the printing press, the steam engine, the electric telegraph?