upvote
Please try to answer this: how did poverty and hunger reduce so dramatically in the last 100 years.

I'm reasonably extrapolating much like most economists would.

Also here's my other bet: even the WORST areas in the planet would see prosperity and better living conditions in 100 years compared to today. That's how it has always been, unless you come up with tail risks due to climate change which I don't personally buy.

reply
Try Spain, for example. Wikipedia: "Over 30% of the area is already severely impacted by desertification". Agriculture will depend more on irrigation, and there will be less water available.

There will be enough food for people to live there, yes. But agricultural yield is expected to go down by ~20% or so if emissions continue. And people sitting in worse spots are not just going to sit there and wait for the flood and die. There will be wars about who gets the resources from the new best places.

reply
1) Development of industrial processes for the production of ammonium sulphate and other synthetic fertilizers;

2) Development of internal combustion motors and their application in agricolture.

reply
Try extrapolating like climate scientists do.

Trad econ has as much predictive value as fantasy football.

reply
I won’t extrapolate toy models that predict end of human civilisation due to tail risks. None of that is going to happen.

even if the tail risks do happen like ice sheet melting, it is over 1000s of years before it truly makes an impact. And even then the impact is minor in grand scale of things.

You could always find some looney model that predicts the world would end if we don’t control emission. Agree to disagree on that.

reply
The only "looney model" is thinking "AI" poses any existential risk while ignoring the coupling of food production to heavily threatened biophysical systems.
reply