3 ms·

If the world was composed of countries living at the quality of life of Western Europe or America and with that level of technical and economic expertise this

If the world was composed of countries living at the quality of life of Western Europe or America and with that level of technical and economic expertise this would I think be reasonable, but in fact billions of people are living hand to mouth. Look at the effect that Syrian migration to Europe or indeed Mexican migration to the USA has had on Western politics. Now imagine instead of 5 million people from Syria 100 million or 500 million are on the move? Is the population of Bangladesh going to gradually relocate, and if so where to? Its nuclear armed neighbour on one side, with their own hundred million to be displaced from subsistence agriculture, or the country conducting ethnic cleansing on the other? You have assumed a greater degree of stablity than is reasonable.

randyrand 8y ago
People will primarily move more inland within their own countries. Some cities will be raised. Neighboring countries will absorb some. Small border shifts may happen, as have happened for centuries.
- Brakenshire 8y ago
  People living in Western cities doing desk jobs, living in a globalized flexible economy can just be moved inland, and their food supplies can shift from one commodity food producer to another. That is, assuming these commodity food producers remain stable and invested in the global trading system. People who are subsistence farmers rely on their land to live. You cannot just move those people ‘upland’ away from the agricultural land which feeds their continued existence.
- mr_overalls 8y ago
  You have no reason to believe this. From: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25422366/trump-ambassador-to-canada-climate-change-scientists/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25422366/trump-ambass... "The fourth and latest National Climate Assessment put together by 300 scientists from 13 agencies of the U.S. government and released last month found that climate change is real, man-made, and will cost the U.S. 10 percent of its economy by 2100. Midwestern farmers will lose 75 percent of their crop yields, and trillions of dollars in coastal real estate will be at risk. The wildfires out west, already unprecedented in their destruction, will get worse. Hurricanes and typhoons will grow more ferocious. Epidemic diseases will flourish." And that's just for the US. Large portions of Africa and the Middle East are predicted to become uninhabitable. The threat to human life on a time-scale of 100 years or more is gargantuan.
  - drorh 8y ago
    Wow, by 2100 it will cost the US 10% of its economy? You mean a small size recession? And you all are such a fuss about? And for that you want to deprive 3rd world people from gaining the same benefits you get from energy? This is alarmism on the grandest scale and a horrifying hypocritical at that. There is nothing we can do about CO2 right now. We can just continue to work on safer and cleaner ways to generate electricity (atomic mainly, fusion hopefully, solar for the local homes, etc.)
    - Comevius 8y ago
      Alarmism was never so appropriate. We have so much to lose.
    - Brakenshire 8y ago
      The predicted costs of tackling it are significantly lower, so why not just tackle it and avoid the recession. Also, a permanent loss of 10% is not a small recession, most recessions lead to no permanent loss, just a demand shock which is made up afterwards. A permanent loss of 10% is more like the financial crisis, and I’d rather avoid that if I can. One brought Trump and Brexit, I’d rather not add another to the mix.
  - randyrand 8y ago
    "Midwestern farmers will lose 75 percent of their crop yields" and other farmers will benefit and have increased yeilds. I don't mind facts. But misleading ones I do mind.
    - Oletros 8y ago
      Misleading?
- jimjimjim 8y ago
  what what what? that is a nightmare scenario. If anything like countries needing to move inland happens it will mean that the world is already in economic ruin and the survivors are in a roadwarrior/madmax style existence. if this needs to happen, the world will in a such a state that YOU will not be able to buy a beer or watch tv.

randyrand 8y ago

People will primarily move more inland within their own countries. Some cities will be raised. Neighboring countries will absorb some. Small border shifts may happen, as have happened for centuries.

Brakenshire 8y ago
People living in Western cities doing desk jobs, living in a globalized flexible economy can just be moved inland, and their food supplies can shift from one commodity food producer to another. That is, assuming these commodity food producers remain stable and invested in the global trading system. People who are subsistence farmers rely on their land to live. You cannot just move those people ‘upland’ away from the agricultural land which feeds their continued existence.
mr_overalls 8y ago
You have no reason to believe this. From: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25422366/trump-ambassador-to-canada-climate-change-scientists/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25422366/trump-ambass... "The fourth and latest National Climate Assessment put together by 300 scientists from 13 agencies of the U.S. government and released last month found that climate change is real, man-made, and will cost the U.S. 10 percent of its economy by 2100. Midwestern farmers will lose 75 percent of their crop yields, and trillions of dollars in coastal real estate will be at risk. The wildfires out west, already unprecedented in their destruction, will get worse. Hurricanes and typhoons will grow more ferocious. Epidemic diseases will flourish." And that's just for the US. Large portions of Africa and the Middle East are predicted to become uninhabitable. The threat to human life on a time-scale of 100 years or more is gargantuan.
- drorh 8y ago
  Wow, by 2100 it will cost the US 10% of its economy? You mean a small size recession? And you all are such a fuss about? And for that you want to deprive 3rd world people from gaining the same benefits you get from energy? This is alarmism on the grandest scale and a horrifying hypocritical at that. There is nothing we can do about CO2 right now. We can just continue to work on safer and cleaner ways to generate electricity (atomic mainly, fusion hopefully, solar for the local homes, etc.)
  - Comevius 8y ago
    Alarmism was never so appropriate. We have so much to lose.
  - Brakenshire 8y ago
    The predicted costs of tackling it are significantly lower, so why not just tackle it and avoid the recession. Also, a permanent loss of 10% is not a small recession, most recessions lead to no permanent loss, just a demand shock which is made up afterwards. A permanent loss of 10% is more like the financial crisis, and I’d rather avoid that if I can. One brought Trump and Brexit, I’d rather not add another to the mix.
- randyrand 8y ago
  "Midwestern farmers will lose 75 percent of their crop yields" and other farmers will benefit and have increased yeilds. I don't mind facts. But misleading ones I do mind.
  - Oletros 8y ago
    Misleading?
jimjimjim 8y ago
what what what? that is a nightmare scenario. If anything like countries needing to move inland happens it will mean that the world is already in economic ruin and the survivors are in a roadwarrior/madmax style existence. if this needs to happen, the world will in a such a state that YOU will not be able to buy a beer or watch tv.