I was originally going to just comment to Cameron about this podcast, but after seeing your eloquent and cogent comment above, I decided roll you in.

Outstanding podcast, Rod! You are a truly skilled debater, in the most correct sense…none of the “yell at each other until everyone’s blue in the face” that passes for debate nowadays on MSM. IMO, you basically dismantled most of Doug’s objections, staying on point as he switched between historical, “scientific”, and economic objections. Great job!

I’ve been catching up on G’Day Worlds after losing the feed in my podcatcher for a bit; this was one of my favorites so far; I appear to have lost the Atomic podcast as well…can’t wait to start catching up on them! Take care both of you, and thanks for a great debate.

Thank you for hosting the discussion. I hope that people listen closely to our comments about nuclear energy, but I also hope that they pay careful attention to the choices advocated by each of your guests (me and Doug La Follette).

My vision is one where human beings are allowed to prosper and develop in many ways – including making better use of nuclear fission – an amazing, low waste, energy producing natural process that we have just begun to really learn to exploit.

Doug’s vision traces its intellectual underpinnings to the teachings of Thomas Malthus and Paul Erlich who taught that humans are a resource consuming burden on the planet. According to Malthus, we should have all starved to death by about 1850, and Erlich predicted famines and pestilence by 1990.

Specifically, I want people to listen to what Doug advocates at about the 40 minte point in the podcast:

Here is what he said: “What we have to do. If we decided to come to grips with this and if the world’s politicians would face it. We need to have basically something like a one child per family policy for something like three or four generations. And that would bring the world’s population down to a level that we might be, with good technology and maybe even a nuclear plant or two, able to have a sustainable situation.” (My punctuation might be a little off, but I tried to make sure that I captured every word he said.)

I am too much of an engineer, a technologist, a libertarian and a humanist to buy into that plan. It is a frightening concept from my way of thinking.

Others might disagree, and I am certainly willing to engage in focused discussions on this vitally important topic.