A Quote by David R. Brower

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?
It is doubling now every two years. Doubling every two years means multiplying by 1,000 in 20 years. At that rate we'll meet 100 percent of our energy needs in 20 years.
Historically, we have always seen reversion to the mean. After stocks have had an unusually great 10 or 20 years, they typically turn in subpar results over the next 10 or 20, and after bad 10- to 20-year stretches, the next 10 to 20 tend to be above average.
I like to go out there and be organic and improvise off the energy I feel from the crowd, whether it's 50,000 or 20,000 or 10,000 people in the audience.
If you have a horse that can beat horses worth $20,000, typically you enter it in a $20,000 claiming race. Now there might be people who feel their horse is worth $20,000, and they say, 'I wouldn't mind seeing the horse get beat.' So they'll enter it for $40,000 so the horse looks like it's performed badly.
Every year, I have given Rs 20,000 crore worth of projects to HAL. But the previous UPA government gave just Rs 10,000 crore projects.
Small acts can drive reforms. What appears minor can actually be vital and fundamental. Generating 20,000 MW of power attracts a lot of attention. That is important. At the same time, 20,000 MW of power can be saved through a people's movement for energy efficiency. The second is more difficult but is as important as the first. Small indeed, is beautiful.
The next 10 years could be the most important in the next 10,000.
In a world where wealth is growing, you can get away with printing money. Doubling the debt over the next 20 years is not a problem.
The earth's history over the past several million years is that for every 100,000 years, we go through a dramatic climatic cycle where we get 90,000 years of ice age and 10,000 years of a warm period. I think people today just have the expectation that we deserve a perfectly benign climate forever.
I waited all those years for a title shot, and when I finally got it, I had to pay $20,000 for the opportunity. My purse was only $18,000. So to make money, I had to bet $10,000 on myself at 8-5. That was how it was in those days.
A reporter called on Edison to interview him about a substitute for lead in the manufacture of storage batteries that the scientist was seeking. Edison informed the man that he had made 20,000 experiments but none had worked. "Aren't you discouraged by all this waste of effort?" the reporter asked. Edison: "Waste! There's nothing wasted. I have discovered 20,000 things that won't work."
Look at a child and realize that their future is in your hands. It's not just those who will be here fifty years from now. The decisions we make in the next ten years will shape the next 10,000 years.
Developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class-involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing-are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.
I have a lot of difficulty in a business culture that is only interested in making money. I can't see the point. What's the point of spending £10,000 just to make £20,000? Why not just keep the £10,000?
The 'size' of science has doubled steadily every 15 years. In a century this means a factor of 100. For every single scientific paper or for every single scientist in 1670, there were 100 in 1770, 10,000 in 1870 and 1,000,000 in 1970.
You can put a person in jail for 5 years, for 10 years, or 20 years, for the same crime. We're deciding on 10 years to 20 years, when 5 years would be enough. Okay. The deterrent value, the additional amount of leverage that you get over a criminal to keep them from breaking the law in the first place, associated with making the sentences longer, is de minimous; it's essentially nothing.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!