Thread: Global Warming Impact: Global Starvation and Societal Collapse

With the new feedback that have been introduced recently which range from the albedo flip from the lack of snow and ice in the Arctic, to the record methane in the atmosphere (see: Arctic News: Record Methane in Arctic early March 2013) which have had very negative effects on agriculture in the main bread baskets of the world, for example America: With drought season off to a bad start, scientists forecast another bleak year | Nation/World | ADN.com, which has some serious implications for the world.

What is concerning about the increase in drought in certain areas is the decrease in Agricultural Output as areas that depend on imports will lose out and there is the risk of a large proportion of the population of the world starving with conflicts over resources which are little in availability and thus with the recent new developments such as the Arctic's record melt and the recent fracture event: Arctic freezing season ends with a loud crack - Arctic Sea Ice, will likely cause more positive feedbacks and Agricultural Output to tank even further.

This brings us to the man question which is about the main impacts of these new developments. Either we could experience societal collapse, global starvation, nuclear war and cannibalism becoming the main regime in the very near future or the process might be even more gradual.

This kind of alarmism is about being passive in the face of the consequences of our own actions. There is good reason to fear the very worst possible outcomes. But that also goes for driving a car. In both cases if we take sensible care of what we do ourselves and cooperate with others - whether in (inter)national agreements or in just observing road rules and traffic conditions, we can get ourselves past the potential extreme dangers and also ameliorate or soften the impact of the unavoidable. If you have to have a car accident, it's a lot easier on the cars, the occupants and the emergency response teams if the impact is at a lower speed / in an easily accessible spot than otherwise. Same thing goes for climate. We will suffer some real hardship and too many unnecessary deaths - but lesser hardships and fewer deaths is preferable to greater suffering.

Never, ever believe that we're helpless in the face of this kind of danger. We got ourselves into this mess and we have the skill, the technology and the money we need to get ourselves out of (the worst) consequences. There's no point pretending that we're not going to have to deal with rising sea levels and unpredictable weather for several decades, if not two or more centuries, but there's also no point in throwing our hands in the air. We do what we can, where and where we can.

Remember the real challenge before us. We have to do whatever it takes to "Avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable" consequences of the damage we've done. (I see the main unavoidable issue as sea level rise making necessary large relocations of populations and infrastructure away from the biggest port cities) It may not be easy or comfortable or cost-free, but it's much easier and cheaper to do as much as possible as soon as possible to avoid the much worse outcomes in store if we wait to see how bad it can really get.

Originally Posted by adelady

This kind of alarmism is about being passive in the face of the consequences of our own actions. There is good reason to fear the very worst possible outcomes. But that also goes for driving a car. In both cases if we take sensible care of what we do ourselves and cooperate with others - whether in (inter)national agreements or in just observing road rules and traffic conditions, we can get ourselves past the potential extreme dangers and also ameliorate or soften the impact of the unavoidable. If you have to have a car accident, it's a lot easier on the cars, the occupants and the emergency response teams if the impact is at a lower speed / in an easily accessible spot than otherwise. Same thing goes for climate. We will suffer some real hardship and too many unnecessary deaths - but lesser hardships and fewer deaths is preferable to greater suffering.

Never, ever believe that we're helpless in the face of this kind of danger. We got ourselves into this mess and we have the skill, the technology and the money we need to get ourselves out of (the worst) consequences. There's no point pretending that we're not going to have to deal with rising sea levels and unpredictable weather for several decades, if not two or more centuries, but there's also no point in throwing our hands in the air. We do what we can, where and where we can.

Remember the real challenge before us. We have to do whatever it takes to "Avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable" consequences of the damage we've done. (I see the main unavoidable issue as sea level rise making necessary large relocations of populations and infrastructure away from the biggest port cities) It may not be easy or comfortable or cost-free, but it's much easier and cheaper to do as much as possible as soon as possible to avoid the much worse outcomes in store if we wait to see how bad it can really get.

Even with our current technology, with the shortage of food resources as a result of lower crop yields I just don't see any chance of society being able to survive as people and nations become more desperate for resources and conflict ensues.

I fully expect to see more disputes over water - especially the longer larger rivers which traverse several countries - leading to open war if negotiations and agreements break down. The question is how many and how bad. We're far beyond the point where we can blithely say we can avoid all such outbreaks of violence, but we can implement appropriate policies and practices to reduce the number and the severity of such conflicts.

We might occasionally cry into our pillows about these prospects, but it shouldn't stop us from getting up the next morning and getting on with doing the most and the best we can to - and I'll repeat this here -

Avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable

There's a useful discussion around this concept here. “Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth” | Sustainable Bainbridge Discussion Circle

I read the link and found it quite interesting and got a great insight into the situation.

However I would like to present an alternate opinion and a question that hopefully provokes perhaps some discussion on this topic from a scientific point of view rather than from what I see on other forums being mostly filled with opinions.

Opinion A: http://arctic-news.blogspot.ie/2013/04/advice-for-parents-at-the-end-of-the-world.html
The link presents the fact that we are beyond the Tipping point and are in the cusps of many feedbacks that will bring damage sufficient enough to cause society to crash in the near future (timescale wise the author has said in a post on a forum dedicated to the Arctic Ice that the events would occur
The pink also acts as some sort of survival guide, giving out many suggestions as to what people can do should society crash.

Opinion B:
Although it presents a range of opinions as to what will happen if the Arctic Melts I feel the most important one is the one that is produced by the author of Opinion A, giving years and discussing the events that will happen in those years that are to come which of course is quite bleak in the sense that it describes the transition into absolute chaos with world famine, war and cannibalism being the main regime.

Although I find Opinion A comparable with the link you have posted, mainly in the sense that it mainly discusses adapting to the new world, I am not sure if the world, as described in Opinion A, is one that a person could survive in with severe resource depletion (something as described in the Novel titled The Road) and desperation it seems rather hopeless with the guidelines described in Opinion A somewhat meaningless.

But at this point with crop production doing well humanity still has time to adapt and, as the link says; Avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable

"The average global citizen consumes 43 kg of meat per year, up from 34 kg in 1992"
Product detail

last year, minnesota and north dakota had record corn harvests(with heat, the grain belts move north)

silly unfounded alarmism is a distraction from the real changes we should be studying
so seregate, if you really care so much,
How many trees have you planted?

Originally Posted by sculptor

"The average global citizen consumes 43 kg of meat per year, up from 34 kg in 1992"
Product detail

last year, minnesota and north dakota had record corn harvests(with heat, the grain belts move north)

silly unfounded alarmism is a distraction from the real changes we should be studying
so seregate, if you really care so much,
How many trees have you planted?

I have planted none...

please do so, then nurture them till they're big enough to survive on their own.
the average growing tree consumes over 53 pounds of CO2/year , releasing oxygen

then practice
reduce
repair
rebuild
reuse
recycle all man made products that come into your control

if we all did these simple things
it'd be a greener and healthier world we live in

On food.

The world already produces more than enough food to keep 8 to 10 billion people well fed. Of course, the distribution is lousy, and a lot of grains are used for biofuels or to feed cattle.

And yet, we are a long way short of what could be grown. It is estimated that Africa could, on average, triple its food production per acre simply by adding fertiliser. Global climate change will alter what foods can be grown in specific places, of course, but will not reduce the total amount of food that can be grown world wide. Indeed, with better technology, we should be able to grow far more food than we do today. That technology will, over the next 100 years, include large numbers of sophisticated and cheap robots, and new genetics for food crops.

As far as drought is concerned, climate change science predicts a total increase in rain fall - not a drop. It will be more erratic, and water conservation will need to be sophisticated - but that is well within human capability. Some areas will get less rain, but a lot of other areas will get more rain.

Sea level rise will reduce habitable land by no more than 5% absolute maximum, and warming will open vast areas of North America and Siberia to habitation.

There is nothing that humanity cannot adapt to, and with rapidly improving science and technology, we should do it without making any significant sacrifices as to human welfare.

The world already produces more than enough food to keep 8 to 10 billion people well fed. Of course, the distribution is lousy, and a lot of grains are used for biofuels or to feed cattle.

And never, ever forget the vast quantities of food lost in storage. And it's not just a nutrition issue. It also affects the income of poor/subsistence farmers who are obliged to sell their whole crop or its surplus at the time of harvest - seasonal glut and lowest prices - because of the lack of on-farm or communal storing facilities free of moulds, insects and rodents. If they could store their produce successfully, they'd be able to get higher incomes spread more evenly throughout the year.