Thanks for correcting two errors: the name of the energy consulting company I referred to is Cambridge Energy Research Associates (my friend, Dan Yergin, the head of this company, will be unhappy I made this mistake). BRCA1 AND BRCA2 are the correct names of the gene mutations that induce breast cancer.
I do not know where the calculations came from about the enormous number of nuclear plants necessary to replace oil, but I believe they are way off. I mentioned nuclear power as replacing oil in the context of hydrogen fuel cells becoming a substitute for the internal combustion engine. No work in this area that I have seen provides any detailed estimates yet of the nuclear power needed, but those given are far below the ones stated in the comment. Nuclear electric power would mainly replace coal and natural gas, and already 20% of the power in US is from nuclear plants, and about 70% in France.
I do not fully exclude catastrophes from my analysis since I mention that nuclear power would reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that appear to be causing global warming. I exclude terrorism and wars since I admit I do not know how to link their likelihood to economic development and medical advances. Medical advances reduce the consequences of pandemics and probably biological warfare, but economic development probably raises the spread of nuclear and other destructive weaponry.
I certainly do not believe nor did I state that economic development of Africa and other terribly poor regions is unimportant because of medical advances. Of course, economic development is also important, but it remains very possible if poor countries follow India and China and begin to adopt the right economic policies. However, bad health is terrible too, and also a cause of limited economic development, so it is worth emphasizing that the health of the populations of most poor nations has greatly advanced during the past several decades.