4 ms·

> some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. What is your basis for this claim? It's entirely possible for prawns fished from the coast of Mozambique t

by danaris 9mo ago

> some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. What is your basis for this claim? It's entirely possible for prawns fished from the coast of Mozambique to simply...go extinct. For areas with good arable land to be plunged into inhospitably cold temperatures, only for other areas with arable land to be made too hot to reliably support their crops. There's no cosmic balance being kept here.

lelanthran 9mo ago
> It's entirely possible for prawns fished from the coast of Mozambique to simply...go extinct. So? That isn't an irreplaceable staple, is it? Those prawns can be replaced by food that is grown in other places that are viable, whether newly viable or always viable is irrelevant. > For areas with good arable land to be plunged into inhospitably cold temperatures, only for other areas with arable land to be made too hot to reliably support their crops. I find it unlikely that all areas become non-arable at the same time. Not even the most extreme warnings about climate change go to this extreme. What is your reasoning for considering a possibility so small that it exceeds all the most extreme models we have?
- danaris 9mo ago
  > Those prawns can be replaced by food that is grown in other places that are viable, whether newly viable or always viable is irrelevant. But those prawns are gone. The people whose livelihood depended on them have lost that. The people for whom they were a staple have lost that, no matter how replaceable they may be. Sure, given time, we may be able to find replacements for the things we lose to this drastic climatic shift. But that's not a guarantee, and even if we do, there's huge damage and upheaval in the meantime. > I find it unlikely that all areas become non-arable at the same time. It's not about "all areas". Nowhere did I say that everywhere on the planet would become non-arable land at the same time. It's about having more land lose viability than gains it within a short span of time. What you're positing—that as various areas of the planet warm and cool, there will be perfect balance in what arable land we lose and gain—seems much, much less likely than the scenario where land we have farmed for literally thousands of years becomes wasteland, and we do not immediately gain enough new arable land in other areas to replace it. In fact, every projection I have seen has suggested that while we may gain some new arable land, it will be much, much less than what we lose in a scenario like the one described. What it looks like to me is that you are either handwaving the decades (or more!) of turmoil, hardship, and loss of life for people in the areas that will be most affected by this, or you're engaging in seriously magical thinking to posit that every acre of farmland lost will be perfectly balanced by an acre of farmland gained somewhere else, and no one will be seriously negatively affected by the move from one to the other.
  - lelanthran 9mo ago
    > What you're positing—that as various areas of the planet warm and cool, there will be perfect balance in what arable land we lose and gain I am not, and never did propose that. I am arguing that there is no model that I am aware of that predicts a such dramatic NET reduction in arable area that society collapses. If you know of such models, now would be a good time to make me one of the lucky 10k :-) The only ones I am aware of are those predicting specific collapse on specific populations, most of which are tiny, percentage-wise. > What it looks like to me is that you are either handwaving the decades (or more!) of turmoil, hardship, and loss of life for people in the areas that will be most affected by this, No, I am not. Respectfully, you appear to be ascribing intentions to my argument that I don't have. I quoted the bit I was responding to specifically! >>> I can't help but think of all the historical societies that collapsed due to even mild pressure on the food supply. To which my answer is that this is very unlikely - there will be turmoil, hardship and (some - they aren't going to all die) loss of life in the affected currently-arable areas, but society does not depend on any specific area being viable. The largest societies live nowhere near their source of food. The impact is not the same as the quoted "historical societies" that collapsed when the arable land did, because our societies don't have the dependency of "living on or near arable land". Will there be a negative impact on those people living in and around arable land? Sure. Are they a significant percentage of our societies? Nope. Single-digit percentage of the population is nowhere close enough to cause a societal collapse. All of this to say that, what happened to historical societies happened because those societies were built in, on and around their basic nutrition requirements. Our societies are not.
    - danaris 9mo ago
      You said > some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. and provided no basis for that claim. Not "some other spot may become viable." Not "the amount lost will be minimal." Not "we will be able to get by with less." You made an extremely strong claim, that for every lost place to fish, we will, definitely, necessarily, be granted another. That is what I was responding to. Indeed, I quoted it in my first message here.
      - 9mo ago

by danaris 9mo ago

lelanthran 9mo ago

> It's entirely possible for prawns fished from the coast of Mozambique to simply...go extinct. So? That isn't an irreplaceable staple, is it? Those prawns can be replaced by food that is grown in other places that are viable, whether newly viable or always viable is irrelevant. > For areas with good arable land to be plunged into inhospitably cold temperatures, only for other areas with arable land to be made too hot to reliably support their crops. I find it unlikely that all areas become non-arable at the same time. Not even the most extreme warnings about climate change go to this extreme. What is your reasoning for considering a possibility so small that it exceeds all the most extreme models we have?

danaris 9mo ago
> Those prawns can be replaced by food that is grown in other places that are viable, whether newly viable or always viable is irrelevant. But those prawns are gone. The people whose livelihood depended on them have lost that. The people for whom they were a staple have lost that, no matter how replaceable they may be. Sure, given time, we may be able to find replacements for the things we lose to this drastic climatic shift. But that's not a guarantee, and even if we do, there's huge damage and upheaval in the meantime. > I find it unlikely that all areas become non-arable at the same time. It's not about "all areas". Nowhere did I say that everywhere on the planet would become non-arable land at the same time. It's about having more land lose viability than gains it within a short span of time. What you're positing—that as various areas of the planet warm and cool, there will be perfect balance in what arable land we lose and gain—seems much, much less likely than the scenario where land we have farmed for literally thousands of years becomes wasteland, and we do not immediately gain enough new arable land in other areas to replace it. In fact, every projection I have seen has suggested that while we may gain some new arable land, it will be much, much less than what we lose in a scenario like the one described. What it looks like to me is that you are either handwaving the decades (or more!) of turmoil, hardship, and loss of life for people in the areas that will be most affected by this, or you're engaging in seriously magical thinking to posit that every acre of farmland lost will be perfectly balanced by an acre of farmland gained somewhere else, and no one will be seriously negatively affected by the move from one to the other.
- lelanthran 9mo ago
  > What you're positing—that as various areas of the planet warm and cool, there will be perfect balance in what arable land we lose and gain I am not, and never did propose that. I am arguing that there is no model that I am aware of that predicts a such dramatic NET reduction in arable area that society collapses. If you know of such models, now would be a good time to make me one of the lucky 10k :-) The only ones I am aware of are those predicting specific collapse on specific populations, most of which are tiny, percentage-wise. > What it looks like to me is that you are either handwaving the decades (or more!) of turmoil, hardship, and loss of life for people in the areas that will be most affected by this, No, I am not. Respectfully, you appear to be ascribing intentions to my argument that I don't have. I quoted the bit I was responding to specifically! >>> I can't help but think of all the historical societies that collapsed due to even mild pressure on the food supply. To which my answer is that this is very unlikely - there will be turmoil, hardship and (some - they aren't going to all die) loss of life in the affected currently-arable areas, but society does not depend on any specific area being viable. The largest societies live nowhere near their source of food. The impact is not the same as the quoted "historical societies" that collapsed when the arable land did, because our societies don't have the dependency of "living on or near arable land". Will there be a negative impact on those people living in and around arable land? Sure. Are they a significant percentage of our societies? Nope. Single-digit percentage of the population is nowhere close enough to cause a societal collapse. All of this to say that, what happened to historical societies happened because those societies were built in, on and around their basic nutrition requirements. Our societies are not.
  - danaris 9mo ago
    You said > some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. and provided no basis for that claim. Not "some other spot may become viable." Not "the amount lost will be minimal." Not "we will be able to get by with less." You made an extremely strong claim, that for every lost place to fish, we will, definitely, necessarily, be granted another. That is what I was responding to. Indeed, I quoted it in my first message here.
    - 9mo ago