Re[2]: philosophical curiosity in a long summer afternoon

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

Well I wasn't going to get in one this one, but here goes:  The most trenchant 
comment on "present generation v. future generation" in Art Buchwald's:  "Future
generations are going to have to go out and find their own non-renewable 
resources. Afer all, we found ours." 

Seriously: we try not to waste resources and we try to preserve some things 
(like national parks) but where is the ethical justification for depriving a 
"present generation," whatever that is, for some "future generation?"  
"Generational equity" is in my opInion a phony-baloney excuse for opposing 
radioactive waste disposal in geologic repositories -- who ever heard of it 
before 1982?  Furthermore, it can only work in one direction; one can't go back 
in time and be "fair" to past generations.  If it "fair" that in my youth 
children got polio and today there is a vaccine and they don't?  Fairness has 
nothing to do with it.

Clearly only mo own opinion

Ruth Weiner
rfweine@sandia.gov 

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: philosophical curiosity in a long summer afternoon
Author:  Brian_Gaulke@hc-sc.gc.ca at hubsmtp
Date:    7/27/98 12:09 PM



     
C.   The ethical/moral/philosophical issue raised, in my opinion, has 
nothing to do with "respect for the universe."  It has to do primarily with 
ethical treatment of current and future generations of human beings.  To 
make it harder on someone else so that you have it easier is unethical, 
whether that involves buying coffee beans from large corporations who 
exploit local workers, or rapidly depleting a non-renewable resource so 
future generations will not have the benefit of it.  From this perspective, 
the issue originally raised is certainly valid.