Apes moi, le deluge

Virginia Democrat Wants To Roll Back Key Environmental Rules: ‘I’m Not Going To Be Here’ To Suffer Consequences

He is quoted thus in a report by WAMU, according to Josh Israel.

State Sen. Dick Saslaw does not mince words about his support for uranium mining.

A Northern Virginia Democrat who is also the Senate minority leader, Saslaw says burying the radioactive byproduct known as tailings underground should be a solution to environmental concerns.

And he says he can’t be concerned about what might happen 100 [years] from now.

“What about 10,000 years from now? I’m not going to be here,” Saslaw says. 

“I can’t ban something because of something that might happen 500 or 1,000 years from now.“

Though his remarks as quoted by WAMU, as they appear in Israel's post, do not support WAMU's claim that he said he can't be concerned about what might happen 100 years from now, let that pass.

Burying is exactly what is now done with waste from nuclear power plants.

That is the best disposal method anyone has been able to think of, though it certainly leaves a problem that future people (if there are any, by then) will have to deal with.

If we think that too selfish and unkind to the future then we have to stop using nuclear power altogether.

Not too many folks will want to do that.

But his remarks are not actually relevant to the issue at hand, however, if the dangers under discussion are immediate and not in the far off future.

The piece by Israel is not quite clear.

Anyway, a somewhat irrelevant, or perhaps somewhat relevant, consideration is this.

Oil is not a renewable resource, nor is any fossil fuel.

A liberal once became outraged when I suggested that fact by itself was not a good argument for rationing or cutting present usage for the sake of the future.

Despite appearances, his outrage makes not one whit more sense than someone complaining you ate the last piece of pie in the fridge.

Wasn't someone going to eat it?

Why not you?

Were you only supposed to take half of it?

But then is the real complaint just that you took too big a piece?

If not, then if you took only half the next guy would have the last piece.

Why is he allowed to take the last piece, but not you?

Or was he supposed to only take half of what was left to him?

Theoretically, yes, that can go on forever.

But really . . . . 

Or were you supposed to cut the piece left to you into N equal pieces because N people might come after you, wanting a piece?

What number is N?

Mightn't more people than that come later?

And if you cut up the remaining piece into N equal pieces mightn't all of them be too small for use?

And, anyway, can't those people just eat something else?

How does anyone know something better won't be available for them than anything that has ever been available for you, including this piece of pie?

John Locke, the right's favorite philosopher, was and is much over-rated, along with his contemporary followers.

Google "Lockean proviso."

You can't as a practical matter leave "as good and as much" of a limited and non-renewable resource for those who come after you, no matter how little you take, unless that number is reasonably small.

We already know it won't be.

And we don't even know they will actually need any of it.

Mightn't they have something better?

Oh, heck.

What if you had the last piece of pie in the whole world and you knew that no food would ever be available again, after that, for anyone?

Do you want a slice of cheese or a scoop of ice cream with that pie, sir?

And coffee?