Podcast appearances and mentions of Ronald Bailey

Today we start off in hour one with Ronald Bailey from Reason magazine, discussing the fate of Rank Choice Voting, not only in Alaska, but around the country. We'll get his takeaways and what he thinks may be coming next. The in hour tow, we may (or may not) be joined by State Senator Mike Shower. Either way, we'll gov over yesterdays vote count and more.

Protection of the environment is strongly associated with regulation of the human activities that threaten it, and regulation is usually administered by government. Although almost everyone would probably agree that some regulation is necessary, regulation has a patchy record when it comes to environmental protection. And there is another approach to achieving environmental goals. Free market environmentalism, instead of protecting nature from market forces, harnesses those forces to protect nature. Or at least that's the idea.Ronald Bailey is the longtime science writer for Reason Magazine, a renowned American libertarian news & opinion outlet that's been around for more than 50 years. Ron joins me to flesh out the case for free market environmentalism.Links to resourcesRonald Bailey - Ron's profile page on the Reason websiteThe limits to growth - 1972 book about the possibility of exponential economic and population growthPopulation bomb - 1968 book by Paul Erlich that speculated about the dangers of overpopulationSilent Spring - 1962 book by Rachel Carson about the effects of pesticide on the environment and peopleEnvironmentalists Shocked That Local People Protect Forests Better Than Do Governments - 2014 article of Ron's in Reason Magazone, including links to further information, about how indigenous peoples and local communities can be good stewards of the environemntThe Environmental Trinity — 2024 article by Jesse Ausubel about ecomodernism and decoupling from resource-useOur World in Data - A website that shows global trends in easy-to-grasp graphic formatVisit www.case4conservation.com

On this week's Education Gadfly Show podcast, Marian Tupy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the founder and editor of HumanProgress.org, joins Mike and David to discuss the incredible progress that humanity has made over millennia, and what schools might do to better teach kids that our past, present, and future is not all doom and gloom. Then, on the Research Minute, Amber examines a new study investigating if education savings accounts increase tuition costs at private schools.Recommended content: Ten global trends every smart person should know: And many others you will find interesting —Marian Tupy and Ronald Bailey“Progress, rediscovered” —Ronald Bailey, Reason Magazine“School choice need not mean an expensive windfall for the rich” —Michael Petrilli, Fordham Institute“Name Fordham's boy band!” —Eduwonkette, Education WeekJason Fontana and Jennifer L. Jennings, “The effect of taxpayer-funded education savings accounts on private school tuition: Evidence from Iowa,” Annenberg Institute at Brown University (April 2024).Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our podcast? Send them to Daniel Buck at dbuck@fordhaminstitute.org.

Cynicism is plaguing more than just our politics. Our everyday lives have been weighed down by complacency, mindlessly taking the world-changing inventions of the 20th century for granted with little motivation to move forward. When would happen if we found our way back to the innovation that once defined our nation? Ronald Bailey from Reason joins the show.

Reason Magazine science correspondent Ronald Bailey, RealClearPolitics president and co-founder Tom Bevan and Washington bureau chief Carl Cannon join Andrew Walworth on today's RCP Takeaway podcast.

Ravi, Rikki, and Joe look at new reporting from the New York Times, which found that a small number of repeat offenders accounted for almost one third of all shoplifting arrests in New York City last year. How did we get here? And is this part of a larger, national issue? We talk with local bodega owners to see what they're experiencing. Then we pivot to a discussion about the unluckiest generation: Millennials. But are they really so unlucky? We speak to psychology professor Jean Twenge who argued in The Atlantic earlier this week that Millennials are doing just fine. Finally, we discuss regulating the burgeoning industry of artificial intelligence. Is it the right time? Will it ever be the right time? We speak with Professor David Gunkel and Reason's science correspondent Ronald Bailey to get to the bottom of it. [01:35] - Shoplifting [21:37] - Broke Millennial Myth [40:46] - Should We Regulate AI? Leave us a voicemail with your thoughts on the show! 321-200-0570 Show notes: https://thebranchmedia.org/show/lost-debate/ep-130/ Subscribe to our feed on Spotify: http://bitly.ws/zC9K Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/3Gs5YTF Subscribe to our Substack: https://thelostdebate.substack.com/ Follow The Branch on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thebranch.media/ Follow The Branch on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebranchmedia Follow The Branch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/thebranchmedia The Branch website: http://thebranchmedia.org/ The Lost Debate is also available on the following platforms:  Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lost-debate/id1591300785 Google: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vTERJNTc1ODE3Mzk3Nw  Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-lost-debate iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-lost-debate-88330217/ Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/752ca262-2801-466d-9654-2024de72bd1f/the-lost-debate 

India Policy Watch #1: Fertility 2.0Insights on current policy issues in India— RSJFirst, the good news. “India may have already surpassed China as the world's most-populous nation in a milestone that adds urgency for Prime Minister Narendra Modi to create more jobs and ensure the country sustains its world-beating growth.The South Asian nation's population stood at 1.417 billion as of end 2022, according to estimates from the World Population Review, an independent organization focused on census and demographics.That's a little over 5 million more than the 1.412 billion reported by China Tuesday when authorities there announced the first decline since the 1960s.” (from Business Standard, 18 Jan)We have argued for long on these pages that people are resources. They aren't a problem. We have a governance problem if our default view of people is that they are a burden. We have a chapter in our book (HAVE YOU ORDERED YOUR COPY YET?) explaining why ‘aabadi isn't barbaadi”. There's an extract from that chapter in the next section of this edition. Here's another news item that caught my attention this week:“State-run Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (RCF) and National Fertilizers Ltd (NFL) plan to build five new factories to manufacture super-efficient nano-urea under a licence from IFFCO Ltd, a development that promises to ease India's mounting fertilizer subsidy burden.The two companies have signed arrangements with IFFCO, a producer in the cooperative sector which holds the patent for nano-urea, a person aware of the matter said on condition of anonymity. They will pay royalties to IFFCO for producing nano-urea, a nanotechnology-based product 100 times more efficient than conventional urea, which will shrink the quantity of fertilizer usage and thereby lower the subsidy burden. It also boosts nutrient availability, enhances productivity, helps soil health and reduces the carbon footprint in fertilizer production.”(from Mint, 19 Jan)It is useful to appreciate why policymakers and well-meaning thinkers over the ages have worried about population increase. One mental model we have is about the finiteness of resources available on earth to support human life (or life in general). There's a biological load that the planet can support, and after this limit has been reached, we will face scarcity. Malthus, who was among the first to articulate this, put it simply - the growth of human population is exponential, while food and other resources needed to support life grow linearly. And unless wars, famines or other events correct this, we will hurtle towards a ‘Malthusian catastrophe'. He wrote about in the late 18th century with a warning that unless preventive checks on population are done at a policy level, the catastrophe might be upon us by the mid-19th century. Of course, we know it didn't turn out that way. What happened then? It is difficult to prove this conclusively, but it is likely that spontaneous order worked. As demand increased, producers searched for additional resources like new arable land (maybe more colonialism), worked harder (two crop cycles instead of one) or became more productive through technology (early mechanisation of agriculture using tools of the industrial revolution). Yet, there was a lurking feeling through the late 19th and early 20th century that we might reach the limit of sustenance. Till Haber and Bosch did their thing.Plants need nutrients, specifically N (Nitrogen), P (Phosphorus) and K (Potassium). NPK plus water and the sunlight is the only way to convert solar energy into food. Plants get these nutrients from the soil. When they die, they give them back to the soil. This is how life sustains itself. But this wasn't enough to sustain a civilisation. We needed more plants, and soon we realised we had natural limits of these nutrients. Among them, Nitrogen was the most elusive. It is the most abundant element in the atmosphere, but it is available in an inert form. And it was almost impossible to isolate it. There were workarounds to this. Certain plants (like legumes) could ‘fix' Nitrogen from the atmosphere. That is, their rhizomes could support bacteria that could convert the inert Nitrogen into ammonia that could then enrich the soil. Or, we found large guano deposits in Chile and Peru, which were rich in Nitrates, and we exported them worldwide. But these weren't enough to sustain the ever-growing demand for food. Synthesising ammonia became one of the great scientific problems of the time. In 1909, a German scientist, Fritz Haber, achieved this breakthrough in his lab. Soon, he and a BASF engineer, Bosch, translated this lab experiment into a commercial process. Ammonia could now be mass-produced. It was not the most efficient process because it required a lot of fuel. But, it revolutionised agriculture production around the world. It was possibly the single most important innovation of the 20th century that had no shortage of great ideas. Agriculture productivity grew between 3-5 times across most countries in that century, and it is safe to say urea and synthetic fertilisers were the single biggest reason for it. Haber-Bosch process is a wonderful example of human ingenuity where a technological breakthrough unlocked a new productivity frontier when we had thought we had reached its limit. But this came with costs. There's no elegant way for plants to absorb Nitrogen from urea. It has to be spread on soil and then sprayed on leaves. About 30-40 per cent of it gets used at best. The rest is wasted. It leaches into groundwater and rivers and kills aquatic ecosystems. They eventually end up in our food and into us. The production of urea requires a huge amount of fossil fuel. Nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, is a byproduct of the Haber process. The environmental impact of synthetic fertilisers has begun to undermine their benefits. It is still a force of good but with an asterisk next to it. In India, we have an additional burden of fertilisers. Fertilisers are expensive to manufacture. The input costs keep going up. A 45 kg bag of granulated urea costs about Rs. 4000 to manufacture. This is unaffordable for most Indian farmers, or so the government believes. So, it subsidises fertilisers. The farmer gets the same bag for Rs. 266. The government (and therefore the taxpayer) pays Rs. 3750 per bag for this subsidy to the fertilizer manufacturers. Put together, the annual fertiliser in India totals Rs. 2.5 lakh crores (trillion). It is not a small number. It is about half of our total healthcare spend. We, here, take a dim view of subsidies. Subsidies distort markets and create deadweight losses. The producers (often government entities in India) don't have the incentive to be competitive. Private players don't have an incentive to come in. They are delivered inefficiently and do not often reach the intended recipients. Then there are interest groups formed to perpetuate the subsidies because they benefit from them, and this leads to rent-seeking behaviour from the state. And, finally, all of this is funded by the State whose track record of using taxpayers' money in the most effective manner is dismal. There's no economic rationale to justify subsidy. Yet, once you have gotten this gravy train going, it is impossible to bring it to a halt. You can argue that India shouldn't have so many marginal farmers in the first place who find urea prices impossible to afford. That getting these farmers out of agriculture is the only viable future for them. But there's a human cost to pay in the short term to go down this path. There's electoral cost too. So, we will continue down the path of ever-increasing fertiliser subsidies and dig ourselves into a deeper hole. And, we will have the union minister for fertilisers proudly claiming that we will have a 40 per cent increase in subsidies during this year.That brings me back to the news item about nano urea. India is setting four new plants, apart from the one already in production, that will manufacture nano-urea under a licence from IFFCO Ltd. Nano urea seems like some miracle drug. On paper, if one were to believe the hype, it is 100 times more efficient than conventional urea, will boost crop productivity by 20 per cent, improve soil health and reduce carbon footprint. The patent is held by IFFCO based on the work done by a young Indian scientist, Ramesh Raliya, who returned from the US to set up Nano Biotechnology Research Centre with IFFCO. There have been some field pilots done, and based on that, the fertilisers ministry has decided to double down on production. I hope they have been scientifically rigorous on the tests and aren't buying their own hype. Let me take just take the claim that nano urea is super efficient by, say about 80 per cent (not some 99 per cent that the literature shows). What does it mean in terms of urea consumption? Liquid nano urea will replace the urea that's spread on leaves and plants directly. It won't possibly substitute the urea spread on the soil. I could be wrong here, but that's my understanding reading through the patent that's filed. If this were true and 50 per cent of urea is what's sprayed directly on plants (which is where efficiency will be seen), we would see a net reduction of about 40 per cent of urea consumption. Let's keep it at this broad level. The total subsidy budget for next year is likely to be about Rs. 2.5 lakh crores. Urea accounts for about two-thirds of the total subsidy, which comes to about Rs 1.7 lakh crores. And we might eventually end up saving about 40 per cent of it. That's a cool Rs 70,000 Crores. I mean, why build 5 factories? Build 50 and start exporting this. Besides the subsidy savings and the impact on the current account because of lower imports, there is all the positive impact on the environment and carbon footprint. It seems too good to be true. But that's what the Haber-Bosch process looked like when it was used commercially. “Bread from air” was how people saw it. Like they say, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Well, I'm rooting for nano urea to live up to its hype. It will again show that the answer to our problems is not to go back on scientific progress and development. It is to find a forward-looking solution for the problems that's brought upon us by the progress of the past. Science will ultimately solve the problems created by science. Jan Nisar Akhtar (father of Javed Akhtar) wrote this line in a song from Chhoo Mantar (1956):“Tumhi ne dard diya hai, tumhi dawaa dena” (God, it is you who has given me this pain, and it is you who must provide succour too).Akhtar was talking about God. He might as well be talking about science.An Excerpt from Missing in Action: Why Should You Care About Public Policy— A chapter from our upcoming book that releases tomorrowChapter 25: Aabadi Isn't BarbaadiThere was a time not so long ago when a population clock (counter) would play for a few ominous seconds on Doordarshan (DD). During the ‘80s, the State-run DD was the only channel in the country and right in the middle of a film or an episode of B.R. Chopra's Mahabharat we would see the counter ticking away furiously, eighty-one crore Indians and counting. Thus sobered about the grim reality of our population, we would go back to the fifth day of the great war wondering about Abhimanyu. Over the years, governments of all hues have viewed our population as a problem. This is a view that most citizens also hold because this has been drummed into their heads. Population explosion or ‘janasankhya visphot' is a hook on which Indians hang a lot of their problems. People are seen as hungry stomachs to feed rather than enterprising brains that can contribute to prosperity. From an economic perspective, population is a neutral variable. It can be good or bad depending on the context. We will examine it in the Indian context in this chapter.The supposed ills of a large population have an outsized influence on our policymaking. The near-death experience in the mid-60s when we were in danger of being a global basket case casts its long shadow on our thinking. The idea that the human population would outpace farm productivity leading to hunger, pestilence and deaths has been debunked over the years. The role of human capital, institutions and ideas on productivity have been established by economists like Solow and Romer. Yet we persist with the Malthusian notion. As Julian Simon argued in his 1981 book The Ultimate Resource, we are an intelligent race who innovate in the face of scarcity. Human ingenuity is the ultimate resource that can make other resources plentiful. More humans lead to more ideas, bigger markets, larger infrastructure spending and, paradoxically, higher prices for scarce resources, which leads to conservation or search for replacement products. There is empirical evidence to support this has been good for the world over the last century.Pitted against Simon was Paul Ehrlich whose 1968 book The Population Bomb was a stronger and more logical update of the Malthusian argument for a different era. Ehrlich believed human exploitation of resources would make them scarcer and costlier until we ran out of them. Famously, in 1980, Ehrlich and Simon placed a bet on the future prices of five metals ten years later. Here's Ronald Bailey in his book The End of Doom (Thomas Dunne, 2015) about the bet:In October 1980, Ehrlich and Simon drew up a futures contract obligating Simon to sell Ehrlich the same quantities that could be purchased for $1,000 of five metals (copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten) ten years later at inflation‐​adjusted 1980 prices. If the combined prices rose above $1,000, Simon would pay the difference. If they fell below $1,000, Ehrlich would pay Simon the difference. Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $576.07 in October 1990. There was no note in the letter. The price of the basket of metals chosen by Ehrlich and his cohorts had fallen by more than 50 percent. The cornucopian Simon won.Population isn't a problem. The ability to tap human capital to produce ‘catch-up' growth and ‘cutting-edge' growth is the issue in India. We have failed to create institutions or policy frameworks that enable the ultimate resource. As Nitin Pai, director of the Takshashila Institution, a think tank, puts it eloquently: under-governance, and not overpopulation, is India's problem.To say that our public institutions have the capacity to handle only so large a population is not an argument to reduce the population. It is an argument to enlarge the capacity of our public institutions. Like Procustes, we cannot chop off the legs of sleepers who were too tall to sleep on his bed. We need longer beds. Enlarging capacity is about better ideas, better technology, better people and more people engaged in governance. It is wholly wrong to attribute our failure to scale up governance to keep pace with population growth to ‘overpopulation'. (Source)Nevertheless, we continue to blame our population. Several prime ministers in the past have failed to appreciate this and PM Modi, in his address to the nation on 15 August 2019, followed the same line. This sentiment is shared by large sections of our society too. It's not difficult to find Malthusians opposing migration on the grounds that there are just way too many people in their city.We will get older before getting richer. That is the plain truth. At a mere $2000 per capita income, we are sliding below-replacement fertility rate in most of the states. This is a bigger problem than our imagined overpopulation. In 2040, we will be an old, low-income country lacking a social security net. At this time, the only moral imperative is income growth. Everything else pales in comparison. But we continue with false trade-offs between growth and other higher-order virtues—equity, environment and national pride. This is not to argue that these aren't important. But we should consider our priorities as a $2000 per capita income economy. Not what we imagine ourselves to be.….Not(PolicyWTF): Pausing Before PreachingThis section looks at surprisingly sane policies- Pranay KotasthaneOur judiciary sometimes behaves like a panchayat. Some court orders preach so much that they resemble WhatsApp rants by your neighbourhood uncle. Then there's also a tendency to succumb to the performative pressure in today's times, where every decision needs to take a moralising tone rather than confront tough trade-offs. However, the judiciary surpassed itself on at least two occasions in the last two weeks, and it deserves all the appreciation for it.The first instance was its Jan 10 order on a petition demanding an urgent Supreme Court hearing on the Joshimath land subsidence issue. Taking a pragmatic stance on the issue, the Chief Justice of India deferred the hearing by a week on the grounds that:"Everything which is important in the country need not come to us. There are democratically elected institutions to see this. They can deal with what falls under their control. We'll keep it on 16th” (LiveLaw)In normal circumstances, the Court would have gone on a “development vs environment” tirade, which would have helped none. For acknowledging that it cannot—and doesn't need to—solve everything wrong, the Supreme Court deserves praise. On Jan 16th, the Supreme Court stuck to its guns, explaining that it could not intervene since the Uttarakhand High Court was already considering the issue. "You don't want to use this issue for social media sound bytes. From the order of the High Court, it seems that the issues raised are in an IA before the High Court. Over and above if you have any other issues, we can give you liberty to approach the High Court with them. (LiveLaw).It's rare when institutions resist the temptation to expand their scope, and for this reason, the Supreme Court's order stood out.The second reason was, of course, the Supreme Court Collegium's decision to respond publicly to the union government's objections regarding certain appointments. The objections by the union government were comical and sad at the same time. In one instance, the government opposed the appointment because of the person's sexual orientation and because he had a Swiss partner. Laughably, the sole premise of the union government's opposition to the current method of appointments is that it lacks “transparency, objectivity, and social diversity”. In another instance, the union government didn't like that a candidate shared an article criticising the PM. The government isn't even pretending that the judiciary needs to align with the government's views. In the third instance, the union government didn't like the fact that the candidate was “highly opinionated and selectively critical on social media.” Note the importance given to the candidates' social media profiles. We'll see more chapters of this stand-off between the judiciary and the executive soon. But for now, the judiciary's forthright stance against the government's ludicrous objections deserves praise. India Policy Watch #2: Another Impossible Trinity Insights on current policy issues in India— Pranay KotasthaneThe “impossible trinity” or the “policy trilemma” is a useful thinking aid. The framework is represented a choice among three favourable options, only two of which are possible at the same time. There's nothing scientific about it, but it can help shed light on the trade-offs involved.For instance, living in many Indian cities can be represented as a trilemma between these three parameters: * A decent standard of living: means that a median resident can afford a dignified dwelling, can commute without fearing death or disability, and can breathe non-hazardous air most of the time.* Economic dynamism: means that the place offers a wide range of economic opportunities at all income levels. &* Individual liberty: means that a place allows an individual to be herself, where community beliefs do not suppress individual initiative, preferences, and expressions. Some intentionally broad generalisations follow from this characterisation. Most of our smaller towns offer a reasonable standard of living but no economic dynamism and little individual liberty. Places like Goa and perhaps cities in Kerala offer a decent standard of living and individual liberty but far fewer economic opportunities. Cities such as Mumbai, Delhi, and Bengaluru offer economic dynamism and higher individual liberty but come at the expense of losing a decent standard of living. Finally, there are cities in Gujarat which might offer you economic dynamism and a reasonable standard of living, but then you might have to eat meat sheepishly and consume alcohol surreptitiously. Does this trilemma make sense to you? And are there places that have resolved this impossible trinity? HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters* [Paper] This USIP paper explains the methods used in judicial appointments as a trade-off between independence and accountability rather well. * [Book] Another edition compiling lessons from policy successes, this time from the Nordic countries.* [Paper] Smriti Parsheera's paper on the governance of Digital Public Infrastructure in India is essential reading for anyone interested in technology policy. A critique by Rahul Matthan is here. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com

The High Ground podcast - Episode 15 - U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command's Ronald "Beetle" Bailey goes back to his roots as a ground-based missile defense officer when he speaks with several Colorado Army National Guard Soldiers and long-time friends from the 100th Missile Defense Brigade - Operations Team to learn how they ensure readiness of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense crew members charged with defending the U.S. homeland against intercontinental ballistic missile attack 24/7/365 in support of U.S. Northern Command. They'll discuss the team's primary and secondary missions, how missile crews are evaluated, the level of expertise required to be an MD OPS team member, and why what they do as evaluators matters in defense of the nation. Released February 18, 2022. Produced by Ronald Bailey.

The High Ground podcast - Episode 14 - Host Ronald "Beetle" Bailey and Mikayla Mast highlight the Army's Space and Missile Defense School. School's Director, Daryl Breitbach, talks about the school's mission and relevance on the modern Multi-Domain battlefield. Later, four different Division Chiefs and Course Managers including: Robert Marquez, Brett Witherill, Dustin Lee, and Kale Murray provide a behind-the-scenes look at how courses are taught, what it takes to be an instructor at the SMD School, and how their training is kept relevant amid the rapid advances in technology and adversary capability. All the while dispelling some of the more common myths and misconceptions they hear from students and others about Army Space and the School itself. Released January 11, 2022. Produced by Ronald Bailey.

Ronald Bailey and Jacob Sullum on the future of COVID-19, the politicization of science, the failure of mandates, and how to talk with anti-vaxxers.

The High Ground podcast - Episode 13 - Host Ronald "Beetle" Bailey and 1SG Steve Segin talk a brief history of the National Guard, followed by conversation with LTC David McDill, SMDC's Senior Guard Advisor, MAJ Andrew Schaaf, Commander, 1158th Space Support Company - 117th Space Battalion, and CW3 Andrew Knight, BMD Systems Integrator - 100th Missile Defense Brigade, to highlight SMDC National Guard missions and units. Released December 10, 2021. Produced by Ronald Bailey.

One of the most shocking lessons that most of us eventually learn is that the greatest acts of evil are generally carried out by ordinary people. Kate Wand has posted an enlightening commentary and a short documentary about the line dividing good and evil. It's an excellent reminder that the surest way to limit evil is to choose not to let it enter the world through us. Why is it so hard to admit when we are wrong? Ronald Bailey has an excellent essay on what confirmation bias does to us individually and how it prevents us from learning what others may have to teach us. Warning: Reading this essay with an open mind requires leaving your pride at the door. Here's some good news. The hardships of the pandemic have caused problem-solvers to think more creatively. J.D. Tuccille reports that entrepreneurship is on the rise, despite Covid-19. Apparently, necessity spells opportunity for those who have eyes to see. Now that three federal courts have struck down Biden vaccine mandates, a number of mega-corporations are starting back away quickly. Daniel McAdams says the brotherhood of the needle is faltering and it's a good time to learn from what has been done to us. Civil asset forfeiture is one of the clearest possible indicators that justice is becoming twisted into something that serves the state more so than the people. Patrick Carroll has the sobering story of a man who pushed back against having his money stolen by law enforcement and who ultimately prevailed. I spend way more time online than I'd like to spend. So much so that I'm pretty sure it's an addiction, at this point. Kent McManigal warns that the growing metaverse is not a reasonable substitute for the real world. He points that that, even with it's difficulties and scars, the real world is a better place. What do you get when you mix science with politics? The answer is politics. And, no, it's not a punchline. Robert Arvay explains how the politicization of science is undermining the public's trust of both. Why aren't kids outside anymore? This is the question posed by free-range parenting guru Lenore Skenazy. She says the decline in children playing outdoors can be traced directly to the idea that kids are in danger all the time and that allowing them any freedom is akin to neglect. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/loving-liberty/support

The High Ground podcast - Episode 12 - Host Lira Frye talks with James B. Johnson, USASMDC deputy to the commanding general, about his 34-year civil service journey that took him from being a college graduate as an electrical engineer, all the way through becoming a member of the senior executive service and the command's highest ranking civilian. Johnson also provides recommendations to civilians on how to improve their career prospects, how the Army has changed over the last three and a half decades, and the one project he looks back upon with the most pride. Released November 3, 2021. Produced by Ronald Bailey.

The High Ground Episode 11 contains several recent U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command news highlights and interviews, history and Cool Jobs segments, updates on changes to the podcast for season two beginning November 2021, and other topics of interest for the Army space and missile defense community. The High Ground is the official podcast of USASMDC. Episode 11, released Sept. 17, 2021, is hosted by Ronald Bailey and Allen Meeks.

In a much needed break from the usual doom and gloom, today's episode covers the book by Ronald Bailey and Marion L. Tupy, entitled, Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know, which actually brings some good news about how the world is improving across many different dimensions. Who would have thought?   If you prefer to follow along on YouTube, check out this episode here: https://youtu.be/N3JVMWEjJDI

David Ansara speaks with Marian Tupy, editor of www.HumanProgress.org, about how the world is better off than we think it is and why we shouldn't take this progress for granted. (0:56) How absolute poverty is declining around the world (5:38) Income inequality and economic progress (10:20) Population growth and natural resources (16:18) Is global warming a genuine threat? (21:45) COVID-19 and government responses to the pandemic (25:08) Democracy and economic development (29:40) The threats to progress in South Africa (33:04) Political polarization in the United States (38:07) Property rights and the rule of law (42:26) How individuals can preserve progress. READ 'Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know: And Many Others You Will Find Interesting' by Marian Tupy and Ronald Bailey: https://www.amazon.com/Global-Trends-Every-Smart-Person/dp/1948647737

Technological breakthroughs mean we'll never again have to suffer with disasters like the novel coronavirus—if politicians will get out of the way.

The High Ground is the official Podcast of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command. In this Special Edition episode, public affairs specialist Ronald Bailey talks with Richard Yu, director, Capability Development Integration Directorate from SMDC's Space and Missile Defense Center of Excellence, Feb. 3, 2021, about his "Cool Job" as the CDID director, roles and history of the senior executive service, and career advice to members of the civil service.

The High Ground is the official podcast of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command. Episode 4 of the monthly flagship series, released Feb. 5, 2021, is hosted by SMDC Public Affairs Specialist Ronald Bailey and Staff Sgt. Dennis DePrisco. The episode contains several recent SMDC news highlights and interviews, listener questions, a Cool Jobs segment, and upcoming events of interest for the Army space and missile defense community.

Welcome to Season 2 of the Great Antidote! Ron Bailey, the science correspondent for Reason Magazine, joins us this week to discuss human progress, the supposed impending apocalypse, COVID-19 innovations, and his new book "The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century." 

Ronald Bailey from Reason.com joins us to talk about his new book (co-authored with Marian Tupy), Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know. We discuss why people are unaware of the global trends, why some data doesn't tell the whole story, and what humanity can do to keep the progress going. Audio Production by Podsworth Media.

On this special Thanksgiving weekend edition of the New Hampshire Journal podcast, Suffolk University historian Robert Allison talks about what really happened on that fateful fall day in 1621, while Drew and Michael debate what should -- and shouldn't -- be served at the Thanksgiving table.And Reason magazine's science writer, Ronald Bailey, talks about the actual science regarding masks and makes the libertarian(!) case for Gov. Sununu's statewide order. He's also the co-author of the book Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know.Presented by the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy. Hosted by JBC President Drew Cline and NHJournal's Michael Graham.

Less than two weeks to go until the political reassurance ritual is observed. Yeah, I know it's a cynical way to see elections but think about the last time an election resulted in less government and more freedom. James Bovard explains how "democracy" is graciously allowing us to choose our own liar. If the powers that be were serious about tracking the spread of Covid-19, they'd see the wisdom in letting people do a rapid, at-home Covid test. Instead, these tests are illegal. Ronald Bailey explores why we aren't allowed to have these tests and how the market could deliver on them quickly if it weren't artificially limited. There is apparently no limit to how far some authorities will go to continue flexing their control with Covid-19 as their excuse. Case in point, California just declared war on Thanksgiving. Will they take away Christmas next? Actor Chris Pratt is under a lot of pressure right now for being out of step with the rest of Hollywood. His thought crime? He belongs to a church that still teaches the concept of right and wrong. Jeff Deist has a terrific essay about the privilege of politics and how the goal of lovers of freedom is a world where people don't seek to coerce others to think as they do. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/loving-liberty/support

Think the world is getting worse? Grab a copy of our new book and explore the data about human progress through more than 70 global trends that will change your perception of the world. Learn more about our new book at tenglobaltrends.org

We spoke with Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine (reason.com) and co-author of the book: Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know: And Many Others You Will Find Interesting. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know documents the immense, ongoing progress that politicians and media refuse to acknowledge.

Ronald Bailey is the science correspondent for Reason, where he writes a weekly science and technology column. In 2006, Bailey was shortlisted by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the personalities who have made the “most significant contributions” to biotechnology in the last 10 years. From 1987 to 1990, Bailey was a staff writer for Forbes magazine, covering economic, scientific, and business topics.

Ron and Ed are fired up to welcome Reason Magazine science editor, Ronald Bailey to the show. Ronald is the co-author with Marion Tupy (Episode 304) of the just-released book Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know (and many others you will find interesting). Bailey is also the author of the book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century (July 2015) and Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution (Prometheus, 2005), and his work was featured in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004.

Ron and Ed are fired up to welcome Reason Magazine science editor, Ronald Bailey to the show. Ronald is the co-author with Marion Tupy (Episode 304) of the just-released book Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know (and many others you will find interesting). Bailey is also the author of the book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century (July 2015) and Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution (Prometheus, 2005), and his work was featured in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004.

Ron and Ed are fired up to welcome Reason Magazine science editor, Ronald Bailey to the show. Ronald is the co-author with Marion Tupy (Episode 304) of the just-released book Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know (and many others you will find interesting). Bailey is also the author of the book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century (July 2015) and Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution (Prometheus, 2005), and his work was featured in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004.

Ronald Bailey gives the case for long-term optimism based on many positive global trends including declining violence and the dramatic reduction in extreme poverty. He also discusses why pessimism persists in spite of these trends. The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/ronald-bailey-global-trends-every-smart-person-should-know/ (Ronald Bailey: Global trends every smart person should know) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

Global poverty, hunger, and violence are declining. The world is becoming a better place, year by year. So why are so many people afraid of the future and nostalgic about the past rather than optimistic about what’s to come? I’m delighted to discuss that question today with Ronald Bailey. Ronald is the science correspondent for […]Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/political-economy-james-pethokoukis/ronald-bailey-global-trends-every-smart-person-should-know/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to Political Economy with James Pethokoukis in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

In the summer of 1984, 14-year-old Kenny Myers left his home to go for a bike ride when he failed to return, his mother reported him missing.  His strangled body was found 30 miles away in a park.  A year later, 13-year-old Shawn Moore disappeared while riding his bike and like Kenny, his body was found decomposed two weeks later, 150 miles from his house.  Other teen boys reported being kidnapped in a similar fashion, but after their assaults, they were released.  Tips began pouring in and eventually the killer, 26-year-old Ronald Bailey, was arrested.   His background showed a history of kidnapping and homosexual rapes, starting when he was only 13 years old.    Eventually, Ronald opened up to FBI forensic profiler John Douglas about how he chose his victims and his method of murder.  Ronald killed boys that reminded him of his younger self.  He rationalized that If he could kill his teen self, then he could prevent the monster he grew up to be from hurting others.   No one will know the true count of Ronald’s murdered victims, but authorities are convinced Shawn and Kenny weren’t the only ones.SUBSCRIBE, Subscribe subscribe to us! Thank you!FOR EXCLUSIVE EPISODES AND CONTENT, GO TO PATREON.COM/TNTCRIMES If you like us, FOLLOW us!Twitter: @TnTcrimes Instagram: @TnTcrimes Facebook: @TnTcrimesVISIT US AT:www.TNTcrimes.comwww.TNTcrimes.com/members/www.Patreon.com/tntcrimesYouTube: TnT: Crimes & Consequences Sources: The Livingston Daily PressThe Livingston PostJourney into Darkness by John Douglas

How many people are infected with the coronavirus, what will it mean for our hospitals, and how many will die? Nick Gillespie talks with Reason's science correspondent, Ronald Bailey, about the constantly changing, often contradictory information coming from official channels.

Orson Scott Card's science fiction novel, “Ender's Shadow” is a favorite of some of our staff. In it, a twelve-year-old's medical condition gives him superhuman brilliance. Only after helping mankind win the war against an insectoid alien invader does Julian Delphiki discover he's the product of a genetic experiment that unlocked the full potential of the human brain. Julian's potential comes at a high cost. He will outgrow his heart and die before the age of twenty. The mad scientist who engineered him is driven to make even more like him, eventually replacing the human race with a new and—in his mind—superior species. Just last year, headlines announced the birth of the world's first genetically modified children in China. The gene editing technology known as CRISPR has made it possible to tinker with the genetic design of human beings. And so, the world met Dr. He, the first mad scientist to don his lab coat in real life. In response, many have warned that the time for preventative action is now. Writing in “Nature,” a group of leading bioscience researchers recently called for a global moratorium on the gene-editing of human embryos. “The introduction of genetic modifications into future generations,” they write, “could have permanent and possibly harmful effects on the species. These mutations cannot be removed from the gene pool unless all carriers agree to forego having children, or to use genetic procedures to ensure that they do not transmit the mutation to their children.” In other words, GMO people, like GMO plants and animals, can pass on their artificial traits, not only making genetic experiments a permanent part of the human genome but also potentially affecting an untold number of lives. In other words, when we genetically alter children, we not only play God with them. We are experimenting on their children and their children's children. Even if the result isn't some nightmare mutation like Julian Delphiki's drastically shortened lifespan, (which he does pass on to his children in the story, by the way), modified embryos cannot give their consent to our experimentation. They must simply live with the traits and the consequences, beneficial or not, imposed on them by mad scientists. Despite the warnings, others have glibly declared we have nothing to fear from this new technology. Objections to human genetic engineering, scoffs Ronald Bailey at “Reason,” are “ethically nonsensical.” After basic health screenings, he writes, “gene-edited kids can be released into the wild human gene pool with no special worries about how they might effect [sic] future generations.” His reasoning behind this, unbelievably, is that mutations happen naturally all the time, and we don't panic about those. What he misses in this proclamation is an essential aspect of bioethics: intent. The fact that people die naturally doesn't mean killing is okay. The fact that people have disabilities doesn't mean we should intentionally disable people. In fact, natural genetic mutations perfectly illustrate how small changes in DNA can be devastating, and will be passed from generation to generation. Just ask those who suffer from hemophilia, or Tay–Sachs or Huntington's disease. If there is a legitimate use for gene-editing, it's in healing, not enhancing. But of course, even that has to be done with the greatest caution, and only by geneticists fully aware that even our best laid plans often fail, and in this case, the consequences will last for generations. Still, our concerns must be more than pragmatic. Other reproductive technologies have already been used to experiment on children without their consent, and many of these folks are now speaking up with concerns we promised ourselves they would never have.  Reproductive ethics must fundamentally recognize that we don't own our children. We have no right to remake them. Whether or not the future of gene-editing will look anything like the movies, the idea of engineering the next generation to suit our preferences is definitely the definition of mad science.

Weather futures contracts show that traders are already building expectations of climate change into the way they invest their money.   Link in this episode: http://reason.com/blog/2019/03/05/the-market-says-climate-change-is-happen   Guest on this episode: Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine and reason.com https://twitter.com/RonaldBailey  

Featuring Terence Kealey, Author, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research,Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute; Ronald Bailey, Author, The End of Doom:Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first CenturyScience Correspondent, Reason; Peter Goettler, President and CEO, Cato Institute; and George Selgin, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Monetary andFinancial Alternatives, Cato Institute.12:40 – 2:00PMLuncheon Address—Truman, Eisenhower and LBJ WereRight to Be Skeptical about Government Funding ofScienceTerence Kealey, Author, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research,Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Featuring Terence Kealey, Author, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research,Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute; Ronald Bailey, Author, The End of Doom:Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first CenturyScience Correspondent, Reason; Peter Goettler, President and CEO, Cato Institute; and George Selgin, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Monetary andFinancial Alternatives, Cato Institute.Online registration is now closed. 10:30 – 10:50AM.Registration10:50 – 11:00AMWelcoming RemarksPeter Goettler, President and CEO, Cato Institute 11:00 – 11:40AMKeynote Address—The End of DoomRonald Bailey, Author, The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first CenturyScience Correspondent, Reason11:40AM – 12:10PM Instead of the Fed: How Financial Deregulation Could Have Ended Financial Crises a Century Ago, and How It Still CanGeorge Selgin, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Monetary andFinancial Alternatives, Cato Institute See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

My guest today is Ronald Bailey.  He's an award-winning science journalist for Reason Magazine and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.  In his new book THE END OF DOOM: ENVIRONMENTAL RENEWAL IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, he says the sky ISN'T falling, and in fact, the world is becoming safer, cleaner, and healthier than ever before.  On this podcast, he'll present the proponderance of scientific data debunking a wide range of environmental alarmist myths about overpopulation, world hunger, the "energy crisis," GMOs & pesticides, deforestation, the "cancer epidemic," endangered species, and more.   He'll reveal how activists parading as "scientists" completely ignore the scientific method and overwhelming data when it contradicts their wild theories.  Why?  Because sensational predictions of environmental apocalypse and misinformation campaigns against things like vaccination mask a radically anti-capitalist agenda, and doom has become a powerful fundraising tool for some of the world's biggest environmental organizations.  Plus Ron Bailey will argue for a rational, measured approach to climate change and explain how the FDA is killing millions more people than it helps by delaying life-saving drugs from hitting the market.   If you enjoyed listening to this episode then please subscribe to "KickAss Politics with Ben Mathis" on iTunes so you'll receive new episodes as they become available. For more information, visit www.KickAssPolitics.com, and if you enjoyed the show and would like to help keep us on the air, then please show your support at www.gofundme.com/kickasspolitics.

. The post Techno-Optimist and End of Doom with George Gilder & Ronald Bailey appeared first on RealClear Radio Hour.

Cancer rates are down in America. Lifespans are up all over. Food is more abundant. Poverty is in decline. Critical to this progress is technology. Ronald Bailey discusses how and why to keep that ingenuity coming in his new book, The End of Doom. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

After shooting the Life Report episode on arguments for embryonic stem cell research, Dr. Buratovich graciously stuck around 37-minutes to answer more questions! This audio includes my new favorite fact about early human development!   Questions:   1: Ronald Bailey has argued that since somatic cell nuclear transfer can transform a nucleus from an adult cell into an embryo, then every cell in our body is a potential embryo. Since we do not get upset about all those cells we lose when we sneeze or scrape our knees, we shouldn’t get upset about the death of a bunch of embryos. I train people to respond to that by saying they’re confusing parts with wholes and talk about what an organism is. How do you respond?   2: Some argue that embryos are like acorns as opposed to oak trees. The loss of a majestic oak tree is a genuinely sad, but an acorn? We trample hundreds of those while playing with our kids at the park and think nothing of it. So people argue that embryos are similar, in that they only become valuable when they grow up. How do you respond to that argument?   3: Respond to the more intelligent pro-choice argument that would say that sentience or some other capacity is a necessary condition for being valuable.   4: But if self-awareness really is what's important, then it seems like the pro-choice person could respond by agreeing that the threshold of self-awareness isn't epistomologically knowable, but that doesn't mean that that threshold doesn't ontologically exist. Then they could do what Boonin and Singer do and just draw the line several weeks before that threshold could possibly exist. How would you respond to that person?   5: The early church made a distinction between abortion after quickening (the maternal sensation of fetal movement), which was viewed as murder, and abortion before quickening, which was not viewed as murder. Is the pro-life movement inconsistent with early church teaching? 6: How would you argue that the unborn is a living, human organism?   7: Clarify how the mother's uterus communicates with the embryo, signalling it to the optimum location to implant.   8: Can we use dead embryos to ethically make embryonic stem cell lines?   9: Should people freeze their baby’s umbilical cord blood as a deposit on future research?

What is the extent of improvements in human well-being and what challenges lie ahead? That will be the topic of conversation between two distinguished journalists, Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post and Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Los Angeles Times water and environmental reporter Bettina Boxall talks with Southern California Water Committee executive director Richard W. Atwater, Maven's Notebook publisher Chris Austin, and Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey about how Californians are learning to live with less water. They explained what Californians, and the institutions that govern us, can do to decrease our consumption and usage of water.