4 ms·

Well, when the global food chain collapses with the environment, I think 'working people' will be overshadowed by 'starving' people.

nostrademons 7y ago
Depends if political stability can be maintained. The Earth produces enough food now to feed about 10B people, a roughly 50% increase over total world population. We still have famine because of distribution problems: the food doesn't get to people who need it, and instead gets hoarded by those with power. Global warming isn't likely to cut total arable land or food production (if anything, it'll likely increase it), but it definitely changes the distribution of arable land. Current breadbaskets like Southern Europe, South Asia, and Brazil might see frequent droughts; currently desolate areas like the Sahara or Canadian Shield may become fertile again. If countries can work out trade deals so that food gets to where it needs to, things can work out. If they start closing borders and saying "fuck you I got mine", there will be widespread starvation and war in many regions.
- jolfdb 7y ago
  Food isn't hoarded, it's wasted, because no one pays for deliver it where it's needed.
- darkmarmot 7y ago
  I'd lean towards a view that those are long-term outcomes that might take thousands of years to materialize. But things like ocean acidification and permafrost methane release are currently looking unstoppable. Canada and Russia becoming new bread baskets is a possible near-term future, but you'll have a lower total amount of incident input energy at those latitudes, meaning that even greater arable land areas will produce significantly less food.
dustinmr 7y ago
If you’re going full Malthusian, why be so pessimistic? Those are “positive checks” on population.
- darkmarmot 7y ago
  Because of 'overshoot'
  - tunesmith 7y ago
    Does that refer to the World3 model? I wish I could remember the details, but I remember getting really into that for a few months. I found some other simulations of the model, including one in javascript. But I also found that some of the initial parameters/assumptions were kind of arbitrary, including one that had a really sensitive impact on the overall modeling outcome. It made me think that it wasn't really indicating what it was purporting to indicate.

nostrademons 7y ago

Depends if political stability can be maintained. The Earth produces enough food now to feed about 10B people, a roughly 50% increase over total world population. We still have famine because of distribution problems: the food doesn't get to people who need it, and instead gets hoarded by those with power. Global warming isn't likely to cut total arable land or food production (if anything, it'll likely increase it), but it definitely changes the distribution of arable land. Current breadbaskets like Southern Europe, South Asia, and Brazil might see frequent droughts; currently desolate areas like the Sahara or Canadian Shield may become fertile again. If countries can work out trade deals so that food gets to where it needs to, things can work out. If they start closing borders and saying "fuck you I got mine", there will be widespread starvation and war in many regions.

jolfdb 7y ago
Food isn't hoarded, it's wasted, because no one pays for deliver it where it's needed.
darkmarmot 7y ago
I'd lean towards a view that those are long-term outcomes that might take thousands of years to materialize. But things like ocean acidification and permafrost methane release are currently looking unstoppable. Canada and Russia becoming new bread baskets is a possible near-term future, but you'll have a lower total amount of incident input energy at those latitudes, meaning that even greater arable land areas will produce significantly less food.

dustinmr 7y ago

If you’re going full Malthusian, why be so pessimistic? Those are “positive checks” on population.

darkmarmot 7y ago
Because of 'overshoot'
- tunesmith 7y ago
  Does that refer to the World3 model? I wish I could remember the details, but I remember getting really into that for a few months. I found some other simulations of the model, including one in javascript. But I also found that some of the initial parameters/assumptions were kind of arbitrary, including one that had a really sensitive impact on the overall modeling outcome. It made me think that it wasn't really indicating what it was purporting to indicate.