Isabelle Boemeke | What everyone gets wrong about nuclear energy

[00:00:00] Isabelle: What do you think was the worst energy generation accident in human history? Pretty much everybody's gonna say Chernobyl. Now, if you ask people how many people you think died from Chernobyl, they'll say anything between, hundreds of thousands to millions. In the case of Chernobyl, there are less than 100 confirmed fatalities.

Later deaths due to radiation exposure are harder to track, but the most credible estimates place it around 4,000. In 1979, there was a huge hydropower dam collapse in China, and it killed around 200,000 people, but nobody knew about this accident for 20 years. You would need something like 200 Chernobyls happening every single year for nuclear to be as dangerous as fossil fuels from a death toll perspective.

[00:00:48] Beatrice: Welcome to the Existential Podcast. I'm Beatrice Erkers, and, I'm today with Isabelle Boemeke, at the Progress Conference. We're, like, live. Not live, But, coming from the Progress Conference. And I'm so excited to talk to you. You just published this book called Rad Future, which is about, basically how nuclear energy can help us create a rad future.

And also, you're something I think you're very unique, 'cause you're literally an influencer for nuclear. And this is something that I'm very curious to, just unpack a bit more. Maybe we should just have more influencers- for all the important stuff. But yeah. Could you maybe just tell us a bit, who you are, and how did you come to this to become a nuclear influencer, basically?

[00:01:37] Isabelle: It's such a long story. I'm gonna try to make it not so brutally long. But I was born in a small town in the south of Brazil, and this will become relevant later. But I immigrated to the United States, around 2008 for, to pursue a modeling career, and I did that for over a decade.

Somewhere along the way, I picked up an interest in science. Believe it or not, I hadn't really been taught about evolution- 'cause I went to Catholic schools most of my education in Brazil. So when I was 19 years old, I ended up reading a book by Richard Dawkins called The Greatest Show on Earth, and it was about evolution.

And I remember being like, "

[00:02:18] Beatrice: Oh my God, how did I not know any of this?" Yeah, that is crazy, actually. Yeah.

[00:02:24] Isabelle: So I went down a rabbit hole and just tried educating myself as much as I could on scientific topics, and became very interested in science. So I started following a bunch of scientists on Twitter.

One of them was a planetary scientist called Carolyn Porco, and Carolyn had worked on the imaging team of the Cassini mission, which, for those who don't know, was an, a mission that flew by Saturn and sent images back to Earth. She's an amazing scientist. And about 10 years ago, she tweeted about molten salt thorium reactors, which is a type of nuclear reactor.

And you just made a face like I have no idea what you're talking about, and that was exactly my reaction back then. I was like, "What is this?" But it sounded really cool, and I think it was, what was shocking was that was the first time I heard or saw anybody speaking positively about nuclear. So that kind of just stuck in my head, more as a curiosity, both about the technology itself, but then about this, interesting thing of somebody speaking positively about nuclear.

I, thought it was a consensus that it was bad. Then fast-forward to 2019, which was five years ago, I saw images of the Amazon on fire, and that was the same year where there were these huge Australia fires as well, and California fires. I don't know if you remember, images of the orange skies. Yeah.

Now, I grew up with climate change being a problem for my generation, but it had always felt like a future problem. And at that moment in 2019, maybe it was the first time that I realized the severity of it and the fact that it's here now. It's not a future problem anymore. And so I just felt really compelled to do something about climate change.

That sounds insane and naive and all the things, but, I was like, okay, I wanna do something, but I had no technical background, obviously. So I started looking into the solutions and, one of the most talked about solutions to climate change is decarbonization, which is basically getting rid of, fossil fuels, which emit carbon into the atmosphere, and one of the best ways to do it is to swap out fossil fuels for clean energy.

So when I looked at all the clean energy sources, nuclear was the only one that had a bad PR problem. And so I thought, "Oh, okay, that's, interesting." And then I had the, time to do a deep dive on, the technology itself, and I think when you don't know much about nuclear or have all those misconceptions and you learn about it for the first time, you come out the other side thinking, "I have to inform the whole world about this amazing technology," because the reality's so different from public perception.

And it- I thought for a long time, "What can I do? What role can I play?" And then one day I just had this crazy idea to become a nuclear energy influencer. And, when I thought of it, I thought it was so it was so outrageous, and it made me laugh. And I realized I, I was onto something because of it, because that was the reaction that I got.

And so I started pitching it softly to people. I would be on a flight and sitting next to someone, and they would say, they would ask, "What do you do for a living?" And I would say, "I'm a nuclear energy influencer." And the responses would always be like, "Oh my God." It was never like, "Oh, okay, cool," and end of the conversation.

They were always excited and at least curious and wanted to learn more. And I felt like every conversation I had, people felt more informed, and it opened their minds to at least want to learn on, their own.

And yeah, that's how I came up with the idea.

[00:06:17] Beatrice: Yeah. Yeah, I think that's...

It's a brilliant idea, and, obviously it's, worked out well. And I think it's also a good example of just, you said you, you wanted to change, but you didn't know how, and I think that's, in general, just a really good example of, this is one of the things that I, come back to a lot because this is the Existential Hope podcast, and that actually, having hope that you can change something is what gives you, agency or something like that.

And so you obviously had, agency, and we should probably encourage more people to do this, to feel like they can actually do something even if they're not a scientist or, a technologist or whatever it is.

[00:06:56] Isabelle: Yeah, totally. There's always something you can do. Yeah. In this case, the problem was very specifically just a bad public perception.

So there's a lot that can be done in the communication arena, obviously, so for somebody who doesn't have necessarily technical expertise. But yeah, to your point, people can always choose to do something. And I think it's a, mindset that's missing in society, this idea that problems are solvable and that we actually are the ones that get to solve the problems.

It's almost like we've gotten to a point where people think that if a problem arises, especially if it's a big problem, that means we should give up 'cause it's too hard, instead of just thinking, "Okay, this is a very complex problem. How can I break it down into s- smaller problems until I get to something that I can actually fix?"

[00:07:47] Beatrice: Yeah. Do you have, Growing up where you grew up in, in South Brazil, I, because I think an interesting, or, maybe to take it back to, the start, like, why energy is such an important issue or, to fix, that we actually need, reliable access to clean energy, is, hugely important.

Maybe a lot of people don't realize. I know you have, growing up where you grew up, maybe you actually experienced things that made you feel that more tangible.

[00:08:23] Isabelle: Yeah, definitely. People who grew up in a, in an energy-rich society, they don't even understand, what a life with low energy access looks like.

It's, basically impossible, just because everything's so convenient, right? And everything is there for you. Now, I grew up in a small town in a rural part of Brazil in the '90s, and we had electricity, though there were blackouts occasionally. But things like air conditioning, dishwasher, laundry machines, heating, 'cause it, it gets very cold there in the wintertime.

Those were not- people talked about air conditioners, but they were so expensive. Not just the machines themselves, but then the electricity you would have to pay- to run it. I remember being, wintertime, and everything's so cold, 'cause there is no central heating.

And, even taking a shower was like torture, 'Cause the water wasn't hot enough, and it's like sprinkly here and there. And in the summertime, there, there's no air conditioning, so you're ju- you can't sleep well at night. You open the windows, the mosquitoes come in. It's just...

It might sound like luxury, but those are the things that just make your life a little bit easier, and especially f- when you're talking about laundry machines and dishwashers, those are things that take a lot of time that you would spend, cleaning clothes or dishes away, and that's time that you can invest in other things, like learning a new skill or-

[00:09:53] Beatrice: Yeah

[00:09:53] Isabelle: Having fun, Yeah. Being with your friends, whatever. Yeah. Whatever it is. So I think it gave me a different appreciation for access to lots of energy. And it's also, I think, what drives my view that, the solution to climate is not to force everybody to live in poverty. Which there's fraction of people who actually believe that.

More commonly talked about as degrowth- which is this idea that it's not enough to swap our dirty energy sources with clean ones, that we just have to completely change our society and stop producing as many goods and consuming as many goods. Which I've talked to people who are proponents of this, and I, truly don't believe they're evil or want to hurt people.

I think they're coming from a place of trying to solve this problem and realizing that actually, energy consumption keeps going up, and we just We can replace some amount of fossil fuels, but because energy consumption just keeps going up, it's never enough. And so I understand where they're coming from.

I just have never seen a plan that I find credible. I ask them, "Okay, how do we do this at scale? How do we implement degrowth?" And then they'll say, Because then you get into the question of, okay, who is we? Are we talk- they'll say, "We should use less energy." Okay, who's we?

Is it the United States? Is it the American continent? Is it Europe? Who is we? And then how much is less? Are we talking about 10% less, 20% less, 50% less? So then how do we enforce that? Do you send people to jail because they have a diesel generator? Do you arrest people? Do you kill them if they use too much energy?

So when you start getting into the details of how degrowth would be implemented, I just find it very hard- To see how that could work in an open society, maybe, in a autocracy for sure. And then the other thing is inevitably what ends up happening is that then they want to prevent poor countries from developing, because they would have, they would have to burn through a lot of fossil fuels to get to the level of development that rich countries have, which I have a problem with, obviously from a moral perspective.

I understand where they're coming from, it just seems I, haven't seen a plan that doesn't include keeping poor people poor or arresting people because they're using too much energy.

[00:12:41] Beatrice: Yeah. I'm a little bit curious to pull at the thread of, you said that you had never heard of nuclear...

You thought there, there was, the consensus was nuclear is bad, basically. And I think that's interesting, I, 'cause we were talking a bit before this podcast. I'm from Sweden, and I f- feel like the consensus where I grew up was that it's good or, you don't, at least it's not we had an, a power plant in my hometown, and it was generally pretty, no one was afraid of that. Everyone was like, "Oh, that's where you get well paid. That's where all the good jobs are." And this is apparently, the case actually for a lot of, a lot of nuclear, like the locals actually likes them. Yes. D- do you know-

[00:13:29] Isabelle: Oh, 100%. Yeah. It's, if you run, polls, the closer you get to a nuclear power plant, the highest the level of public support, because that's where the good jobs are.

Yeah. And not only that, that's where the good jobs are. That's where there are tons of jobs. So I'll use Diablo Canyon, which is a nuclear power plant here in California. It employs 1,200 people. High-paying, stable jobs, and because nuclear plants run for so long, this can also be multi-generational.

So sometimes, it's three generations work at the plant or have worked at the plant. And also they pay so much in taxes. So the community around nuclear always sees the benefits very, clearly. It's almost, it's interesting 'cause it's, there are two ways to think about public perception.

There is the general public perception, of if you ask the, your average person in the street if they see nuclear favorably. That's lower usually, because they have questions about the safety, and they don't actually see the benefits.

But as you get closer to the plant, that, that support level increases.

With renewable energy, it's actually the opposite, where the general vibe, the general feeling is that people support it, but then the closer you get to actual projects- The more people oppose it, because there are, not so many benefits. It doesn't employ as many people. It takes a bunch of land.

It doesn't pay, the jobs that are there don't pay as much as the ones in, the nuclear plant. So it's, almost like they're completely reversed for these technologies.

[00:15:11] Beatrice: That's, yeah, that's really interesting. And so actually let's, then go back to, like, why do you think this is?

I know in your book you talk a lot about, like, why nuclear actually has this really bad rep. Do you wanna just expand on that a little bit?

[00:15:29] Isabelle: Yeah, of course. I think when people think of nuclear, the first thing that comes to their mind is, accidents or, a three-eyed fish from The Simpsons.

Maybe that's too American, when you start to unpeel the onion, you get to the core of it, which is the fact that because nuclear fission was discovered in 1938 in Germany, which was a year before World War II, the first use of nuclear fission was to create bombs, and the introduction of nuclear to the world, or atomic s- technologies, was through the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So imagine the emotional scar that leaves behind in that entire generation, right? When you hear the word nuclear or atomic, the first image that comes to your mind is a mushroom cloud. And so you have an entire generation that's obviously emotionally scarred. And then after World War II, we go straight into the Cold War, where Russia and the United States are stockpiling nuclear weapons, and kids in American schools are doing drills where they hide underneath their desks in preparation for a nuclear attack.

It peaks with the Cuban Missile Crisis, where, American people go to bed every day for over 10 days thinking they're not gonna wake up in the morning. And so you have, layers of generations just being constantly scarred by this or the illusion of this technology. And so by the time the first accident, which was Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, by the time that accident happens, the association with the word is already too strong.

And humans, we are emotional creatures. We react to things in an emotional level, and then we use logic to try and explain why we feel that way. And so imagine, we already have all these bad connotations, and then the accident happens, and instead of saying, "Oh, this accident happened, but nobody died" People went, "See? This is why this is not safe."

Again, even though nobody died from Three Mile Island or even got sick, we know that by now. It also doesn't help that 12 days before the accident happened There was a premiere of a movie called The China Syndrome- where Jane Fonda, who is an icon- plays a journalist that is visiting a nuclear power plant, and she discovers that they were, being super sketchy, and basically the plant has a near meltdown. And then something eerily similar happens to the reactor at Three Mile Island, 12 days later, so- it was just like there are all these, weird timings in history.

Yeah. And then and then Chernobyl happens in 1986, which was a big nuclear accident, and people actually died. And again, it's just more proof, right? See? This is dangerous. This is scary. When in reality, if you think about it, there are only three accidents in, that we can point to being disasters in over 70 years of operation.

And there are around 400 reactors in the world. And so if anything, that points to how safe nuclear actually is, right? Despite the fact that it's a very complex technology. So I think to just, summarize it, I think you can, boil the fear down to the fact that we were introduced to, nuclear technology through the bombs, and then the fact that people were already primed to think that this was bad and dangerous, and then the few accidents that happened in their minds justified it instead of showing how safe it is.

Because if you look at the raw data- nuclear is as safe as solar and wind- and safer than hydro.

[00:19:27] Beatrice: That's crazy. From a,

[00:19:28] Isabelle: Death toll

[00:19:29] Beatrice: Perspective. Yeah. I don't think anyone would've expected that, basically, the hydro point.

[00:19:35] Isabelle: Yeah. Nobody does, but it's because also nobody knows.

If you ask anybody in the street, "What do you think was the, worst energy generation accident in human history?" Pretty much everybody's gonna say Chernobyl. Yeah. From a death toll perspective. But it's because in 1979, there was a huge hydropower dam collapse in China, and it killed around 200,000 people.

That's the estimates. But nobody knew about this accident for 20 years because China. In the case of Chernobyl, obviously, it was, like, in the news everywhere. It was also a nuclear accident. People just tend to sensationalize it a lot more. Now if you ask people how many people you think died from Chernobyl, they'll say anything between, hundreds of thousands to millions.

I've heard people say nine million.

[00:20:32] Beatrice: Oh. I know. That's the population of Sweden. No, I'm kidding.

[00:20:38] Isabelle: And in the case of Chernobyl, there are less than 100 confirmed fatalities. And later deaths due to radiation exposure are harder to obviously, you know- track. But the most credible estimates place it around 4,000.

So 4,000 versus 200,000 for this hydropower dam collapse. And that's honestly, that this accident alone is what makes hydro more dangerous than nuclear, just because of this one incident.

[00:21:10] Beatrice: So there's, a few really interesting threads that I wanna pull out here. One is, okay, so you've, you learn about nuclear, and you're like, "Oh my God, this is...

Why aren't we doing this?" And you decide to become a, an influencer. How do you even start? And- also, one thing that I, when you were talking, you mentioned Jane Fonda, and I think actually that's a really interesting, example, because she's been, like, an anti-nuclear- influencer, one could say, in her time, and- Yes.

Yeah. So how, to think about, for example, if people want to become influencers for important causes, do you have any, thoughts on, like, how they should choose, or what's important to consider, maybe, so that you don't actually You try to do good, but you actually might do damage to, a lot of people by influencing

[00:22:00] Isabelle: For the wrong, thing.

Yeah, I ask myself that question pretty often. I'm like, "Am I influencing for the right thing?" because I think it's a fair question, right? Yeah. Obviously, there are people who are anti-nuclear, and they think I'm not influencing for the right thing. Yeah. I happen to think they're wrong, but in the case of nuclear, the reason why I knew it was good is because there was so much overwhelming data.

Yeah. I wasn't getting into something where, I'm having to search five pages deep into Google search to find something that confirms my bias. There's, so much data from mainstream channels that confirm the safety of nuclear. So that was the number one. And then it was just also going to nuclear plants and seeing how they're run and operated, especially in regards to the waste.

That was really important, because my message around the waste is maybe a little extreme for some people- where I think it's not a problem at all. People say it's the worst problem with nuclear, but I think it's not a problem whatsoever. As a matter of fact, nuclear waste management should be the way we think about waste management in general, because this is the only waste that we produce that is totally accounted for.

We know where every single gram of it is. We fully encapsulate it inside of, a concrete tin, basically, and then we put it aside, so it's not contaminating the environment. It's not hurting people. I don't You can't say that about a lot of other types of wastes that we create as a species.

But, it took me a lot of going to nuclear plants and seeing how the waste is actually handled. Yeah. So I think that getting experience on the ground, and then also just making sure that your data is coming from solid, resources so you're not Which is hard too, because sometimes, like in the case of COVID-

If you even suggested that COVID was a lab leak, people would automatically shut you down and call you a crazy racist. And now, there is no consensus that it was a lab leak, but it's very much a possibility.

[00:24:11] Beatrice: Pretty much I

[00:24:12] Isabelle: Feel, yeah. But it, but, it, and it's- Is a- It's it's clearly a possibility, right?

Yeah. And so those, things are a little bit harder to know if you're-

[00:24:23] Beatrice:

[00:24:23] Isabelle: Promoting the right thing or talking about the right thing. Yeah.

[00:24:27] Beatrice: Yeah, so maybe the, if there's a lesson there, I feel like it's that it might not be the right model for everything. Because I'm assuming, and this is, would be interesting if you could correct me, but, I'm assuming that maybe...

Is it, can you be very nuanced when you're an influencer about things? Or is it more like you choose, one, clear thing that's not too, You don't need to go into too many layers of explaining it to be able to push the point across? Because then it seems like maybe, like nuclear, like you say, there's so much data.

There's overwhelming data to make this a very reliable cause to push. Whereas, other things are, there's not- Newer as easy to get data.

[00:25:11] Isabelle: Yeah. Yeah. Or, it's problems that you're thinking about in the future. Yeah. Even AI safety stuff. Yeah. There are people who are just claim there's a percent- a, a percentage of chance that we might all die.

Yeah. They don't know that. They're just, they're thinking about what could possibly happen in the future. Now, they obviously think that's a worthy cause. So it's, it's, hard to I think that's honestly a deeper philosophical question that I don't know I have the chops to answer, because it is, a very important...

It's actually a very important question, and I think that people should get into the habit of asking themselves that fairly often. Yeah. Even if they have chosen something that they're very passionate about. Yeah. To just every year or so do a gut check and be like, "Am I promoting the right thing?"

Yeah.

[00:26:04] Beatrice: Yeah, I, feel like everyone should probably ask themselves this. But it's But, like, how do you know? Yeah, how? And probably, you probably don't know. But I think one Because I feel like the, there's the hunch way of doing it, which is like the Jane Fonda, you've heard. You have a feeling that nuclear is bad.

And then there's the data way, or, that, that feels a bit more safe. But obviously, yeah, it- it's, extremely complicated and-

[00:26:31] Isabelle: But als- also, even back then- it was obviously based on emotion- as a lot of activism is, right? It's based on a feeling of injustice or danger or whatever. But to be fair to them, we also had way less data back then about nuclear. You know- plants were being built. We had some data, but imagine you're already uneasy, you don't have a ton of data, and then you ge- have a couple of accidents within a decade of each other.

Maybe that was enough data for them, because- That's true

Maybe if there were accidents every, five years or something like that, w- we would reconsider. Yeah. Even though it'd still be way safer than fossil fuels. You would need something like 200 Chernobyls happening every single year for nuclear to be as dangerous as fossil fuels- from a death toll perspective.

Yeah. And I'm, I understand where they were coming from. Yeah. I just don't think it makes sense to be anti-nuclear - Today today. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's like the evidence is just so over. It's like being a flat Earther today.

[00:27:37] Beatrice: Yeah.

[00:27:37] Isabelle: It's just like really? Just, you can do something else.

Yeah.

[00:27:42] Beatrice: Yeah. No, that's- You can be reverent in a different way. Yeah. That's true, and that's a very, I think ver- a very sympathetic also point, and important to, Yeah, it made sense, or, it's not Yeah, again, it's not- Everything is

[00:27:54] Isabelle: Easy in hindsight, right? Yeah. It's oh, those people are so stupid.

Yeah. But even, even COVID is another good example, stuff was happening in real time, and a lot of these politicians, they had no idea what they were doing, and some of them said and made really stupid decisions. I don't think they were ill-intended. No. They were just trying to figure it out in real time.

Yeah. Definitely calling anybody who said, it was a lab leak racist was stupid as hell. Yeah. Even back then there was no explanation for that. Yeah.

[00:28:28] Beatrice: Yeah. So you just wrote this book, Rad Future, that I mentioned. And yeah, obviously I think, like I said whole podcast, very excited to see something like this Rad Future.

What made you want to write the book? And when you f- when you say rad future, do you have a specific, future in mind, or, anything that makes you excited in general for the future?

[00:28:54] Isabelle: So I, whenever I started my nuclear journey just trying to understand as much as I could- it was very hard to find a book that was very accessible. That was a 101, nuclear 101. And I think it took me a lot longer to understand the concepts and try to wrap my mind around, just because it was really hard to find something that I could understand back then.

And so I've always had this desire to write a book that anybody could read.

And, I started this- This project three years ago, so it took me three years to write a fairly short book. But I think the shorter something is actually the longer it takes you.

[00:29:35] Beatrice: I agree. That's the hardest part.

[00:29:37] Isabelle: Yes. Yeah. You have to edit so much out and I tried to make it very conversational.

And lots of illustrations, and TLDRs at the end of each chapters so people just take the m- the, main essence of it. I

[00:29:52] Beatrice: Saw that. The TLDRs were really nice I think. Yeah.

[00:29:55] Isabelle: Yeah. So the TLDRs is just "Hey, this is the gist-" "of the chapter." The, my favorite messages that I get are when people say, "Oh my God, I read your book in an afternoon," or, "two days."

Or when my friends who don't have any, science background, are not interested in science at all, appreciate- the value of it, but it's not something they're, they feel called to. When they tell me, "Oh my God, I really enjoyed reading the book, it was fun, it was easy," so that to me is when I know I've succeeded, 'Cause people, I don't know, people just, I got some criticisms, because of the language in the book. Because I write in a very conversational way. And I have, there is, slang and, whatnot, and, of course I was not trying to write for the academics. Yeah. I was

[00:30:44] Beatrice: Trying to write to your average

[00:30:45] Isabelle: Person.

[00:30:46] Beatrice: Yeah. And I guess for nuclear in particular, this makes sense in terms of approach because, what, the, main thing blocking it, is, public perception to some extent.

[00:31:01] Isabelle: Some of it certainly. As with anything, any of these big problems, when you start looking underneath, anybody who gives you one reason as to why- Yeah

Something is-

[00:31:11] Beatrice: Yeah. They're selling you something. Failing,

[00:31:13] Isabelle: They're selling you something. Yeah. It's so complex. It's, historical reasons, it's just technological reason- there's so many reasons why nuclear has been a flop, in the West I would say. It's, countries like the US, Is it not a flop,

In- It's not a flop in China.

Oh, yeah. That's- China's crushing it. Yeah. Yeah, they're building, they're currently building, 25 reactors. And they have planned 150 for the next 15 years. So China is doing great. Russia is doing great. The United States, not so great. We don't have any under construction right now.

Public perception was certainly one of the factors. Politics is downstream of culture, and so even if a pol- like, the case of Germany is a perfect example. Angela Merkel was a physicist, is a physicist. And she was in power when Fukushima happened in 2011. After the Fukushima accident, Angela decided to phase out of nuclear because of the accident.

Now, I want to believe that she's well-informed enough to know that nuclear is safe despite, you know- Having a couple of accidents. However, Germany is extremely anti-nuclear, and after the Fukushima disaster, people protested in the streets. There were, like, thousands of people. They also tried to stop the shipment of nuclear waste throughout the country.

So I think it's clear to see that her decision was driven by politics. And so w- having people support or having people really protest something does affect the future of a country.

So certainly getting tons of public support is very helpful for anything.

[00:33:00] Beatrice: Yeah. Was there anything, like, when you wrote the book, that surprised you or, made you update it or anything like that?

[00:33:11] Isabelle: I knew quite a lot about the tech, and fun facts like two billion years ago there were natural nuclear reactors on Earth, which is so fascinating. What were they? The Earth has and has had forever chunky deposits of uranium. Today, if we find them, they become uranium mines. But sometimes they're just regions that happen to have a bunch of uranium rock.

And in this one uranium cave in Gabon in Africa, the geological cond- conditions were such that whenever it rained, water would pool in this cave, and chain reactions would, like Nuclear fission events would take place- that would sustain a chain reaction, and then finally the water would evaporate, and it would stop until it rained again.

So for hundreds of thousands of years, this natural nuclear reactors were just, popping up on Earth. If we were to travel back in time and put a turbine, we could actually get electricity from it, but that's, something I knew already, but it's just always fun to talk about it, 'cause it's mind-blowing.

People think of nuclear as artificial and science-y and so knowing that there were natural nuclear reactors on Earth blows people's minds. Yeah. No, that,

[00:34:39] Beatrice: That is, a, very surprising fact. Yeah. I think that So Germany's an interesting example that you mentioned.

And I think in general, I was just talking to Sam Bowman from Works in Progress, who also, we were talking about the, It's, there's quite a lot of data that just points to how, bad things are going for the West in general. If you compare, like you mentioned China, Russia, they're doing great in terms of nuclear.

And in the West, things are not going so great, in terms of things being built and happening. And also, I think that this is very- I'm particularly interested in it from the existential hope perspective, because if you look at data, of what young people, like Gen Z, thinks about the future, like if they are- will have a higher quality of life than their parents had, for example.

The numbers were so shocking. Like I think for the US, which was the highest- it was 30% thought they were gonna have a better life than their parents. Which I find, like extremely low, and also to some extent, ridiculous if you think about people not having kids, for example- because they think that the world is, at its worst that it's ever been. But then you think about no, because if you would have a baby 100 years ago, you, one out of five babies die, and the m- one out of five mothers die or something like that. And so yeah, I just find it very interesting in terms of the culture shift that I feel like you're trying to bring about with your work.

What Do you have any thoughts on like how can we try to fix this? Or like, how can we do better here? I

[00:36:26] Isabelle: Think a couple of interesting points, like you said, this is certainly the best time to be alive- from, disease perspective, from a childhood mortality perspective, from, famine perspective.

This is Especially if you were born in like the United States, right? Without a doubt. I do think that people are trying to point to something that they don't actually know how to articulate. Which is, if you think about human psychological wellbeing, certainly if you don't have food on the table, if you don't have a roof over your head, you're gonna be in a very tough spot, and you're just trying to survive.

Then you get those things, and then you start worrying about other things. Oh, now I want to have, better food, or I wanna have access to other things like cars and whatnot, and then you get those things and then you access a whole other layer of problems. And when you get to a point where you have your basic needs basic- met, right?

You do have, access to food. You're not worried about dying tomorrow, and you do have a quality of life that people 100 years ago could only dream of. And yet- Maybe you have too much time to think is what the- It's one of the things. Yeah. And y- but, I think what people are trying to point to is and yet I'm still not happy.

And this is something that we know from psychology. There is a certain level. Obviously, you don't wanna if you're living in poverty, then that is making you very unhappy, but after you get to a certain level of wealth, your level of happiness doesn't really increase that much.

[00:38:17] Beatrice: Yeah, yeah.

[00:38:18] Isabelle: And as a matter of fact, it might decrease because then you, you have time to think about all this other stuff, so I think, is it first-world problems? Yes, but this is the first world, and it is a problem. So how do we solve that? I'm much more interested in, that perspective. Hey, this is an actual problem that the more access people have to things, the more free time they have, and the more miserable they are about their lives.

How do we solve this problem? Yeah. And I think that just telling them, "Oh, you live a much better life than people 100 years ago," it is not really doing the trick.

[00:38:53] Beatrice: Yeah.

[00:38:54] Isabelle: So that, is an interesting problem

[00:38:55] Beatrice: To solve, right? I think, yeah, I think it's an interesting problem. I also think that there's, something, in how you phrase that for example, I, feel like it's easy to get stuck in then how do we solve the problem of feeling meaning.

The I, think when I've looked at how people tend to feel meaning, it's by doing something meaningful. So maybe that's like what we- It's by doing stuff. Yeah.

[00:39:22] Isabelle: It's like doing stuff actually brings meaning, especially doing hard things- is what brings meaning. Why do people say that having kids is really hard but it's so meaningful?

Because it is hard.

Because you're doing something where you're, you're stretching yourself to become better than you were before. And then on the other side of it, you think, "Wow, I really did that hard thing." so definitely, and it's probably one of the reasons why young people get very into social movements as well, right?

They want to, feel like they're doing something meaningful. That's true. So I think that's an, interesting It's also another interesting, philosophical conversation for what happens when you bring everybody to the f- first world. Yeah. And, then what happens when you add AI into this equation, and tons of people lose their jobs?

Yeah. Good luck then finding meaning.

[00:40:14] Beatrice: Yeah.

[00:40:16] Isabelle: Oh, but everybody's gonna have everything, and they're not gonna have to worry about where the food comes from, and they don't have to work. And then it's then you're the lion at the zoo. Is that fun?

[00:40:27] Beatrice: Yeah. Yeah. And it's also the path to that part of the story is very not clear.

Or, like- the part between everyone loses their jobs and everyone has everything. There's a very It's probably a pretty bumpy path in between.

[00:40:44] Isabelle: Oh, there's definitely it's definitely a bumpy path. The way I foresee it is I think society's just gonna divide into, like- The super, anti-technology people- they're just gonna homestead. Yeah. And you already see signs of that, even, the whole tradwife movement, We're going back to the land, and, growing their own food, and they're off grid, and all that sort of stuff, 'cause that gives them meaning. Yeah. They wake up every morning, and they're like, "Oh, my God, I have, to grow my food."

And then it's gonna be what I call the Wall-E people. If you've seen Wall-E-

[00:41:18] Beatrice: Yeah at the end of it- The fat people that the humans that are just,

[00:41:21] Isabelle: The fat people just, consuming with a screen right in front of their face, which, by the way, you already see happening. I was at a train station the other day, and there's this baby in this cart, and the baby's just, with, its iPad right here.

It was, like, six months old- just on the iPad already. So that's probably how society's gonna be divided in a while.

[00:41:47] Beatrice: Yeah, I think I tend to agree with that, or, that I think it's gonna, Yeah, which which is one of the things that I find myself feeling most conflicted about in relation to technological development, just because, it doesn't seem nice that we're gonna become much more divided.

[00:42:04] Isabelle: And it also doesn't seem clear that more, technology and more ease actually brings about human happiness. And, I don't mean to be a doomer. Obviously, I'm not a doomer. No. I think we should have abundant electricity, and I think we should obviously, just try to make sure that people are not spending their time doing stuff that they don't wanna do.

But it is an interesting question for us to grapple with.

[00:42:33] Beatrice: And I think it's really interesting and really good that, someone like you, for example, acknowledges the tension- on it, 'cause I think that's, when it starts to feel really uneasy, I think. 'Cause for me, it's I think with the existential hope and what Foresight Institute does is, to advance technology.

And to me, it's, obvious that's what we need to do, because that's how we can make life much better for everyone. And we need it, in general, if you think, really long term, just for, the survival of the- planet, or, yeah, these things. But if you also don't acknowledge that there are challenges that comes with it, then it just gets creepy, I think, or, like- Yeah, and

[00:43:14] Isabelle: You just...

And it's, again, it doesn't have to be a thing where you're, like, doomer, stop all technological progress. But just let's think about these problems, too. They're also problems that we get, we, can think creatively how to solve. Yeah. And I used to be very much one of those people, "Shut up. You have it better than anybody else."

Especially when you grow up in a Third World country and you immigrate to a First World country. Yeah. I remember just getting here and being being like, "These people are so whiny. Everybody's constantly whining." Yeah. And then I realized, they just unlocked a new set of problems, And it seems to be, like- The human condition. Yeah We're just constantly unlocking problems.

[00:43:52] Beatrice: Yeah. Was there, is there anything else that you found, between how maybe people, when you came to the US, were thinking in relation to, progress and, the future or technology compared to, in Brazil?

What were, like, the main

[00:44:08] Isabelle: Differences? So the main difference is that, again, going back to this idea of degrowth- I never heard about degrowth in a third world country 'cause everybody's just trying to save enough money to be able to buy the laundry machine or the dishwasher or the thing that is gonna make their lives a little bit easier.

So that was the biggest thing, where people there are just trying to improve their quality of life. And, it's almost like that societal journey from being poor to then, having more and more access. And it's, funny 'cause whenever I see Brazilian people in the United States, they're all at the mall- just buying a ton of branded stuff like Nike shirts or- whatever other brand is cool, and that's how they signal status back in Brazil. So they go back with a huge suitcase full of, branded clothes. And I look at it, and it's, like this cute snapshot into this moment where they've gotten wealthy, like wealthy enough that they can signal, "Oh, I have a good quality of life."

Inevitably, once you go through that, you're like, that doesn't bring me happiness," and then you just get to the top, and you're like And then you get to ask the questions that we are asking- which is, "What does actually bring us happiness?" but yeah, I don't even know how I got back into this topic.

I

[00:45:33] Beatrice: Got roped back in. No, I, yeah, no. I, so I just think, it's interesting to think about then their view on the future is generally more hopeful then. Is that your- I

[00:45:46] Isabelle: Would say it's more pragmatic- and more about,

What happens next year versus 'Cause again, when you're still trying to climb that ladder- you don't have time really to ponder about the, mysteries of life and whatnot. You're just trying to get to the next level. Yeah. But I will say, 'cause I was at a talk recently, and this one man said that the way to solve the mental health crisis is to solve wealth inequality.

And I kept thinking to, to myself, I've, again, grew up in Brazil, and I've seen it, and I've interacted with people of all different sorts of social social levels there, and in the then immigrated to the United States, also just changed my life. So I've been through- Every step of the ladder.

I've never been extremely poor. My family was middle class, but middle class- in Brazil is a different thing than middle class here. And I would say people in Brazil were happier. And it might just be a cultural thing that people are just happier, generally happier there. But there was a sense of more ease and hopefulness and optimism, even though they had way less, arguably, right?

So I don't know that's necessarily true. The way you solve mental health issues is through eradicating wealth, Yeah, it's

[00:47:25] Beatrice: Not What was the case? Was it that, people compare themselves to others or it's-

[00:47:29] Isabelle: I think it's if you're very I think they worded it poorly, 'cause they, the case was basically if you're very extremely poor and you can't, afford healthcare, which is a, an actual huge problem in the United States- extremely expensive. You can't afford healthcare. You don't know if you're gonna have money to eat the next day, and so on. Those things, they creates anxiety, and that constant level of anxiety creates all sorts of health problems, which I agree, but that to me is much more eradicating poverty- than it is fixing wealth inequality.

Yeah.

[00:48:02] Beatrice: I agree.

[00:48:03] Isabelle: But I don't think they I think they were just used to saying the buzzwords and nobody pushing back. Yeah.

[00:48:10] Beatrice: Yeah. Which is often the case. Yeah, that's true. But we don't have, that much time left, so I want There are a few things that I wanna make sure I get to talk to you about before, which is one thing, for example, with your book, I just find it so aesthetically pleasing.

It's so good-looking. Thank you. From, the, cover to, the picture and the, And I'm a little bit curious about, aesthetics in general. D- have you found that's, a really important tool in reaching out with your ideas?

[00:48:45] Isabelle: 100%. Yeah? Because again, people react emotionally.

And my whole thing was how do I make nuclear cool? So I relied a ton on aesthetics, because that's the best way to communicate anything, right? Is to just make an association of a word or something with a visual. And, the book you mentioned, I was very deliberately thinking, "How do I design this book in a way to maximize the chances that a random person who doesn't know who I am, doesn't know anything about nuclear, is going to be interested in reading this?"

And then I went through the process, as you go to a bookstore, what do you do? First, you look at the cover. So I knew it had to be a striking cover that would catch people's eyes, and that's why it's, a gradient, very colorful gradient, that I think is beautiful, but it's also very just colorful.

And then I put the title in a slightly different way. It's, it comes on the side of the book- instead of what's usually on the top. So- You know, that's intriguing as well. It piques your curiosity. And then what do you do? You turn to the back. At least that's how I look at books at, bookstores.

And I turn to the back, and you have the blurbs. And the blurbs are also, it's like I have Paris Hilton, and Michael Bloomberg and Grimes and nuclear scientists. Yeah. And so I wanted for people to be like, "What?" "This is so interesting. Why are Paris Hilton and nuclear scientists praising this book?"

Yeah. And then you look, obviously, at the f- the author photo or, the, first I don't even know what the name is.

[00:50:21] Beatrice: Yeah, the thing.

[00:50:22] Isabelle: I should know, but yeah, the thing. You know what I'm talking about. Yeah. Or then you flip through the book and, I made sure it wasn't too long.

And then also had a ton of illustrations that when you look at the, illustrations, they're also not very intimidating. They seem accessible. So I wanted the whole thing to signal fun- interesting and accessible.

[00:50:45] Beatrice: Yeah. Yeah, I love it. And, so is this something you would recommend people in general then?

Do you think we need more influencers for important causes? Would you, recommend this as, a career pathway or something?

[00:50:58] Isabelle: I think it's a, it's an effective tool. Yeah. I think some people there are people who are very serious, and they feel like they're very they have to be academics or- they, feel like they're some s- sense of pride and resp- self-respect in being academics or something else. I'm more interested in being effective and pragmatic. And so I think that being an influencer for stuff clearly works. This is Influencers online are some of the biggest platforms out there.

Like even the Kardashians, they're considered influencers. Hundreds of millions of people follow-

[00:51:38] Beatrice: That's true. They must be-

[00:51:39] Isabelle: Those women. They're listening to them. Yeah. And so why not? I think it's a very effective strategy, and I think it's also the best way to hone your ideas- and your arguments. Because when you have to simplify it and make it short form content, if you have to make a short video or a short post, and you have to simplify it to a way where m- the most number of people can understand it, it forces you to really think deeply about what you believe in.

[00:52:11] Beatrice: Yeah. And so in terms of what's, coming up for, for you, for your work, and in general, is there something that, makes you a bit hopeful about the future now? What, what's, are you excited about any- anything that you're working on in particular that you wanna make sure to push out to listeners?

[00:52:30] Isabelle: I'm really just heads down focused on getting the United States to start building nuclear again. Ooh. That's gonna be my focus for the next year. I'm also working on a documentary that's- just documenting the nuclear renaissance. 'cause I think this is such a unique time in history.

It might never repeat again. And I wanna make sure that I have the whole thing documented, so all the different companies, and, what's going on politically, and, how the technology evolves, and it's probably gonna be a very long project. It's gonna be maybe a decade in the making. Oh, wow.

Well- But it's gonna be good to document. I'm just going to document it. And then whatever the result is- we'll see.

[00:53:11] Beatrice: That's really exciting. Thank you. Thank you so much, Isabelle. It was really nice to talk to you. 

[00:53:22] Isabelle:Thank you, same.

‍