Worst consequence of AGW

[nanning]

Obviously, nanning, you have access to the Internet.

I live by my own high morality in my actions and life path (if possible in current society).

Emphasis by me.
What do you want me to do more Tom? Is there any relation with your own actions and life? A mirror is missing .

[Tor Bejnar]

What do you want me to do more ...?

Maybe be a hermit on some mountaintop leaving us alone 
Then I could feel guiltless about dreaming of having a Tesla Model 3 (or X or Semi).  Because of you (well, not just you, but you get the idea),

• I try to keep such dreams just dreams, and
• I sometimes think about actual survival tools for my (adult) kid's benefit.

Speaking of which, I'll be attending a workshop on "How We Win" by peace and social justice activist George Lakey.  I first learned of him through the Movement for a New Society (subsequently participating in a weekend training in 1979).

[Tom_Mazanec]

It's possible, even in current society, to live without the internet.
I did it for four decades. I would not like to do it again, but if I thought it would reduce abortion in the country, I would.

[TerryM]

nanning
Thanks for the kind words, but I don't understand your definitions of immorality. Our last two cats had been rescued by my wife when their mother abandoned them beside our pool.
Both were very sick and required ridiculously expensive veterinary services, then feedings of kitten formula by eyedropper for a few weeks.
They lived well into their late teens, then died after another round of expensive vet services. They were unusual in that they never learned to meow. Their needs were met when we heard one of them murmur imploringly.
I like to believe that they each lead a happy, carefree existence. Neither was ever in a fight, neither ever missed a meal, was disciplined, or had any bad health until the end was near.


How this act of kindness could be misconstrued as an act somehow lacking in morality escapes me.


Tor
Did you ever read Maugham's 'The Razor's Edge'? One of the strong themes is that religious studies, even retreating to a frigid Himalayan Peak to seek enlightenment is all an exercise in futility.
The secret is that there is no secret.


Once that's clear, you're freed to follow the mandates of your own conscience without living in guilt, instructing others in their spirituality, or acting in the expectation of reward.


Somerset's works been wonderful companions. Everything he wrote deserves at least two reads.
Terry

[Tor Bejnar]

...
Tor
Did you ever read Maugham's 'The Razor's Edge'? One of the strong themes is that religious studies, even retreating to a frigid Himalayan Peak to seek enlightenment is all an exercise in futility.
The secret is that there is no secret.
...

I haven't read that book.  I went to the Himalayan foot hills not to seek enlightenment, but to practice the lack of secrets, and thoroughly enjoyed my time with Buddhist monks, nuns and practitioners.  (I had the opportunity to hold the (a?) famous yeti skull (probably this one), but declined as I didn't 'believe' in it.  But I did get to view it closely.)

Of course, arguing on these fine threads Neven makes available can be seen as being "all an exercise in futility."
Love you!
 

[TerryM]

Thanks for the kind thought!


I find that the back and forth helps me organise my thoughts and stay abreast of subjects I care about. There's a collegial atmosphere here that's lacking at so many sites. Most have settled into the habit of disagreeing, sometimes strongly, without being disagreeable.


I came for the ice & stayed for the rest. You're all part of the rest.
Terry

[nanning]

nanning
Thanks for the kind words, but I don't understand your definitions of immorality. Our last two cats had been rescued by my wife when their mother abandoned them beside our pool.
Both were very sick and required ridiculously expensive veterinary services, then feedings of kitten formula by eyedropper for a few weeks.
They lived well into their late teens, then died after another round of expensive vet services. They were unusual in that they never learned to meow. Their needs were met when we heard one of them murmur imploringly.
I like to believe that they each lead a happy, carefree existence. Neither was ever in a fight, neither ever missed a meal, was disciplined, or had any bad health until the end was near.


How this act of kindness could be misconstrued as an act somehow lacking in morality escapes me.
<snip>

Dear Terry, I think what you did in caring was intended to be high morality. I'll try to explain why I wrote 'intended'.

It is the whole idea of cats, these are predators, in captivity, brainwashed and owned by humans, which is just another lifeform, a prey animal even. Do you think the 'good life' of your cat has any resemblance to a real natural cat that lives a life in living nature?
We civilisation humans don't have cats for food; to eat them. We don't even put them to work like in the old days catching mice. They are just for fun. Decoration.

It is nice and I appreciate your good intention that you cared for the cats but that caring action in reality, in living nature would not be possible. Only through our supremacy and technology.

This post is meant to be clarifying and friendly  .

[sidd]

"We don't even put them to work like in the old days catching mice. They are just for fun. Decoration."

Mmmm. Who is we ?

If the barn cats i am looking at right now through the window could read, and cared much what humans think, they might be offended. They hang about around the barns, roam far and wide in the neighbourhood,  get fed at every farmhouse in the vicinity and occasionally die from predation or accident.

If you have any sorta grain storage, mice appear. And shortly thereafter, cats.

sidd

[Archimid]

House cats are symbiotic species with humans. We evolved together. We affected their evolution and they affected ours. The same for dogs, cows, sheep, and horses. There is nothing immoral about riding a horse or training a dog to do any job you can train them to do. That's just life.

Then there is food. I know it as a fact that most well-treated cows are more than willing to exchange milk for food, water, and safety. That was bred into them.

 I still struggle with the bull who will enjoy some good years of worry-free living to end up in a slaughterhouse. It is their purpose in life to serve as food for humans, just like zebras are food for lions, cheetas and eventually worms and microbes. And frankly, I like how they taste. So I try not to dwell too much on this question...

[sidd]

House pets are prisoners. I feel sad to see cats and dogs penned up in houses looking out of windows, allowed out under supervision for small parts of the day. For cats, sometimes never.

That said, i agree that dogs have co evolved forawhile with humans. Cats, much less so.

sidd

[nanning]

Thanks sidd, for that voice of reason and morality.

The supremacy is strong here.

Reflecting the 'normal' from civilisation culture. Ye all can't help it I guess. It requires a leap of the mind to break through the safetyglass of the cultural bubble and see humans as just.another.lifeform. Nothing higher or better.

What we see as immoral and normal is a baked-in tradition. That means there has been no thinking! We (civilisation) have always done it like this so it must be absolutely correct and the only possible way.
What's seen as immoral by civilisation has not much to do with my morality theory, even though the words share some syllables. But Jezus' morality views for example, have a lot to do with my morality theory.
Breeding is also a form of supremacy, overriding and destroying living nature's evolution. By destroying natural selection for those plants and animals. Very low morality.

edit: added Jezus' morality

[Archimid]

That's ridiculous.

When humans were predominantly hunters, dogs were of great use, and thus were domesticated long before cats. Cats, on the other hand, only became useful to people when we began to settle down, till the earth and—crucially—store surplus crops. With grain stores came mice, and when the first wild cats wandered into town, the stage was set for what the Science study authors call "one of the more successful 'biological experiments' ever undertaken." The cats were delighted by the abundance of prey in the storehouses; people were delighted by the pest control.

"We think what happened is that the cats sort of domesticated themselves," Carlos Driscoll, one of the study authors, told the Washington Post


Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/a-brief-history-of-house-cats-158390681/#jGHlKbHR0CBwIzZH.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Cats and dogs, together with the rest of the domesticated animals are part of the human species like the bacteria that live on our guts is part of the human species. Cats and dogs without humans evolve into some other species all together and go extinct.

[TerryM]

sidd
It's not often that I disagree with you.
Perhaps house cats that were snatched from the wild react as you've described. My previous felines had all been quite similar to the "barn cats" you've accurately portrayed. My house was a large part of their territory, but they demanded access to all of their domain.


This pair were never exposed to the wild, or even our backyard. They had no knowledge of, nor attraction to anything beyond the bounds of our residence. An open door, even one leading out to an apartment hallway was something to avoid. Windowsills exposed to full sunlight were prefered places of repose, but the cats never displayed more interest in the outdoors than they did to scenes they viewed on television.


They weren't predatory, probably because they'd never observed predation.  A few neighborhood cats in Vegas would come to visit from time to time and neither of our's showed any interest in defending their food. Probably the only "natural" instinct they displayed was in the territorial defence of a favored chair or carpet.
They certainly weren't cats that could have survived on their own at any stage of their existence, and as nanning mentioned their 'purpose' was ornamental, but they also provided and appreciated companionship.
Just as there is much more to human life than being productive, companionship is something that mammals at least require. These animals might not have protected our grainery, but they provided companionship that was as important to us as a rat free grain might be to a farmer.


My wife claims that she was attracted to me in part after meeting my dog. She was not much larger than a good sized cat, but without the excitability that so many dogs of her size display.
She'd also been separated from her mother far too early.
She naturally house broke herself and had never been trained nor expected to do anything but what she wanted to do. The wife had raised a succession of dogs with her previous husband, they were well trained dogs that would follow any number of verbal commands. Carole had never before met a dog that had been allowed to simply be a dog. One that interacted with people without fear or any sense that people needed to be appeased or appealed to, she was her own person, as a dog, and she viewed us as companions, rather than as masters. No alphas to fear, resist, or to acquiesce to.


She too was a wonderful companion that lived a happy life.


If feeding and caring for these companions was immoral, I'm afraid you'll have to live with the knowledge that you've been conversing with an unrepentant sinner. My interactions with these animals certainly increased their longevity, and if the quality of their life was somehow negatively affected they gave no indication that this was so.
Terry

[sidd]

" Cats and dogs without humans evolve into some other species"

Do tell. What definition of species are you using ? Is it you contention that after a few generations in the wild, they cannot interbreed with house pets ? If that is the case, how is is possible today to have wolf-dog crossbreeds ? Although gray wolves and domesticated dogs have lived apart for a very long time ...

sidd

[TerryM]

" Cats and dogs without humans evolve into some other species"

Do tell. What definition of species are you using ? Is it you contention that after a few generations in the wild, they cannot interbreed with house pets ? If that is the case, how is is possible today to have wolf-dog crossbreeds ? Although gray wolves and domesticated dogs have lived apart for a very long time ...

sidd

AAAWWK
I searched through my posts, trying to find what context I might have used that phrase in. Thank god I don't need to defend that one!


FWIW I'm particularly enamored of the Wolf-Coyote breed that's becoming more prevalent here. Barking is OK, but plaintive howlings warbling through an otherwise silent night are one of the great joys of life.
Terry

[Archimid]

 The wolf and the dog are different species and they interbreed. I'm not sure what is your point.

[Bernard]

House pets are prisoners. I feel sad to see cats and dogs penned up in houses looking out of windows, allowed out under supervision for small parts of the day. For cats, sometimes never.

Well, not all cats live this way. We have a she-cat, or should I say a she-cat is living in our garden. She lives completely outside, we don't let her inside ever, even in the heart of winter with snow and hard freeze (we live in the mountains). We just feed her, she goes wherever she wants, no barriers whatsoever, but she never ventures much further than the street corner. She's 17 and as healthy as can get a cat of this age.
I've known many stray cats, they mostly live in parasits and scavengers of mankind's food, but many of them could survive in the wild if needed. There would be less of them, but much  more healthy than home/pet cats.

[Archimid]

Stray dogs and cats are often impressive. Stray cats and dogs that are not impressive in some way are rare because most of them die of hunger, disease or run over by a car. Without a human source of constant food, their chances are not good and life is rough. That pressure forces quick selection.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Ferrets would not survive in the wild.
They have enough trouble surviving indoors.

[gerontocrat]

Ferrets would not survive in the wild.
They have enough trouble surviving indoors.

Ferrets have trouble surviving in the wild because man has destroyed most of their natural habitat.

Read on:
https://www.cuteness.com/article/natural-habitat-ferret

European Ferret
The European ferret (Mustela putorius) is found throughout Europe as well as in northern and western Asia and northern Africa. These ferrets are found in forests, meadows, parks, villages, farms and barns. In general, they are located anywhere that their food sources can be found. They feed on mice, rats, small mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians.

Black-Footed Ferret
The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is found in North America. Black-footed ferrets are highly specialized predators that depend on prairie dogs for both food and shelter.The majority of the black-footed ferret's diet is made up of prairie dogs. The ferrets live in prairie dog towns in underground tunnels.

Topographical Regions
Ferrets live in a variety of habitats, including plains, forests, mountainous regions, deserts, tundra and grasslands.

Dwindling Numbers
Because of the loss of habitat European ferrets have been faced with, the number of ferrets in the wild is dwindling. The black-footed ferret declined almost to extinction at one point and remains threatened. However, they are making a comeback after a population of over 100 ferrets was discovered in Wyoming. The conversion of grasslands to agricultural use and programs that have been put in place to eradicate prairie dogs have reduced the ferret habitat. It is now less than two percent of what it once was.

[gerontocrat]

" Cats and dogs without humans evolve into some other species"

Do tell. What definition of species are you using ? Is it you contention that after a few generations in the wild, they cannot interbreed with house pets ? If that is the case, how is is possible today to have wolf-dog crossbreeds ? Although gray wolves and domesticated dogs have lived apart for a very long time ...

sidd

The Scottish wildcat is regarded as a separate species of cat. It can and does breed with domestic cats that have gone feral.
____________________________________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_wildcat
The Scottish wildcat (Felis silvestris silvestris syn. Felis silvestris grampia) is a European wildcat population in Scotland.[1] This population is estimated to comprise between 1,000 and 4,000 individuals, of which about 400 cats are thought to meet the morphological and genetic criteria of a wildcat.[2] The Scottish wildcat population used to be widely distributed across Britain, but has declined drastically since the turn of the 20th century due to habitat loss and persecution. It is now limited to north and east Scotland.[3] It is listed as Endangered in the United Kingdom and is primarily threatened by hybridization with domestic cats.[4] Camera-trapping surveys carried out in the Scottish Highlands between 2010 and 2013 revealed that wildcats live foremost in mixed woodland, whereas feral and domestic cats were photographed mostly in grasslands.[5]
____________________________________________________

However, I do not think the survival or otherwise of domestic pets after "AGW Armageddon" is the worst consequence of AGW. Perhaps I am wrong about that. "ApoCATlypse  now?"

[Tom_Mazanec]

Mustela furo has trouble surviving because of its suicidal curiosity.

[Tom_Mazanec]

How climate change is killing Alpine skiing as we know it
https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/118899340/how-climate-change-is-killing-alpine-skiing-as-we-know-it

Like other resorts at relatively low altitude, global warming has left its mark on Garmisch-Partenkirchen – the site of the 1936 Winter Olympics – putting the town's identity and affluence at risk. It's January and there's so little natural snow that anxiety is building whether upcoming ski races can go ahead.

[Tor Bejnar]

What could be worse than the loss of recreational snow skiing?

[gerontocrat]

What could be worse than the loss of recreational snow skiing?

loss of recreational snow-boarding.

Skiing is so last century

[philopek]

What could be worse than the loss of recreational snow skiing?

loss of recreational snow-boarding.

https://nypost.com/2015/01/23/why-snowboarding-is-fading-in-popularity/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/376710/active-skiers-and-snowboarders-in-the-us/

https://www.denverpost.com/2013/12/26/snowboarding-declining-in-stats-coolness/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/07/sports/snowboarding-once-a-high-flying-sport-crashes-to-earth.html

 
Skiing is so last century

[nanning]

   Humans risk living in an empty world, warns UN biodiversity chief

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/20/humans-risk-living-in-an-empty-world-warns-un-biodiversity-chief-aoe
  by Patrick Greenfield


  Excerpts:
Humanity will have given up on planet Earth if world leaders cannot reach an agreement this year to stop the mass extinction of wildlife and destruction of life-supporting ecosystems, the United Nation’s new biodiversity chief has warned.

Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, the acting executive secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, has implored governments to ensure 2020 is not just another “year of conferences” on the ongoing ecological destruction of the planet, urging countries to take definitive action on deforestation, pollution and the climate crisis.


The ongoing destruction of life-supporting ecosystems such as coral reefs and rainforests means humans risk living in an “empty world” with “catastrophic” consequences for society

“People’s lives depend on biodiversity in ways that are not always apparent or appreciated. Human health ultimately depends on ecosystem services: the availability of fresh water, fuel, food sources. All these are prerequisites for human health and livelihoods,”

In May last year, the world’s leading scientists warned that nature is disappearing at a rate tens to hundreds of times higher than the average for the past 10m years. Experts have previously warned that humans are driving the sixth mass extinction event in Earth’s history, cautioning there is a short time to act.


The commitments in the draft text, which is expected to be adopted by governments in October at a crucial UN summit in the Chinese city of Kunming, have been kept intentionally modest


it means the global community will have said: let biodiversity loss continue, let people continue to die, let the degradation continue, deforestation continue, pollution continue, and we’ll have given up as an international community to save the planet.


“Our children are asking what climate are they going to inherit from us if the planet they are seeing is polluted. The ocean they are seeing is full of plastic, the forest they are told to be seeing becomes bare land, the consumption patterns are leading to more pollution.

[gerontocrat]

What could be worse than the loss of recreational snow skiing?

loss of recreational snow-boarding.

https://nypost.com/2015/01/23/why-snowboarding-is-fading-in-popularity/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/376710/active-skiers-and-snowboarders-in-the-us/

https://www.denverpost.com/2013/12/26/snowboarding-declining-in-stats-coolness/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/07/sports/snowboarding-once-a-high-flying-sport-crashes-to-earth.html

 
Skiing is so last century

Just proves humanity is going backwards.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Three Scenarios for the Future of Climate Change
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/three-scenarios-for-the-future-of-climate-change

If all these scenarios appear to be either too unrealistic or too unpleasant, I invite readers to write their own. Here’s the one stipulation: it must involve drastic change. At this point, there’s simply no possible future that averts dislocation. The horrific fires this fall in California and Oregon, which were, in a manner of speaking, stoked by climate change, serve as a preview of the world to come. As Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A. & M. University, recently put it, “If you don’t like all of the climate disasters happening in 2020, I have some bad news for you about the rest of your life.” Billions of people will have to dramatically change the way they live or the world will change dramatically or some combination of the two. My experience reporting on climate change, which now spans almost twenty years, has convinced me that the most extreme outcomes are, unfortunately, among the most likely. As the warnings have grown more dire and the consequences of warming more obvious, emissions have only increased that much faster. Until the coronavirus hit, they were tracking the highest of the so-called pathways studied by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If this continues, the I.P.C.C. projects that, by the end of this century, global temperatures will have risen by almost eight degrees Fahrenheit. Let’s just say that at that point no amount of outdoor air-conditioning will be sufficient.

[jens]

What effect of AGW is the worst specific one of all?
Increased heat?
Decreased food production?
Sea level rise?
Weather disasters?
New pandemic potentials?
Climate Refugees?
Trigger for War?
Something else?

The worst consequence specifically for humans would be loss of food production. Humans can adapt to many things - hide into cool houses once it gets hot; move to higher ground once the sea level rises, etc. But without food humans are doomed in a fundamental way - no food, no life.

The worst consequence in general is collapse of biosphere (in the form of i.e Permian mass-extinction), which of course directly influences the food chain and food production as well.

[The Walrus]

What effect of AGW is the worst specific one of all?
Increased heat?
Decreased food production?
Sea level rise?
Weather disasters?
New pandemic potentials?
Climate Refugees?
Trigger for War?
Something else?

The worst consequence specifically for humans would be loss of food production. Humans can adapt to many things - hide into cool houses once it gets hot; move to higher ground once the sea level rises, etc. But without food humans are doomed in a fundamental way - no food, no life.

The worst consequence in general is collapse of biosphere (in the form of i.e Permian mass-extinction), which of course directly influences the food chain and food production as well.

I would agree that food production is most vital.  Fortunately, food production has increased during the recent warming, and forecasts are for a continuation in the near term.  Speculation is that this may start to reverse if temperatures rise another 1C.  The combination of longer growing seasons (due to decreased frost days), higher rainfall, and enhanced carbon dioxide fertilization in the midlatitudes have more than countered for the decreases in warmer climates.  With untapped land in both Canada and Russia available for planting, this may continue even further into the future.

[nanning]

Indeed food which, besides 'production', also needs an intact global infrastructure.
But also potable water. Without potable water you'll not live long.
I observe that aquifers are drying up; most waterways are very contaminated; rainfall patterns change and exacerbate already drought stricken areas; salt water intrusion; superfund sites, fracking and mining are poisoning ground water; glaciers are vanishing and insane bottled water companies depleting the underground water reservoirs. These are trends that are accelerating imo.

[kassy]

Fortunately, food production has increased during the recent warming, and forecasts are for a continuation in the near term.

Do you have a link for the food has gone up claim?

[The Walrus]

Here is your link.  Not only has production increased, but it has been accomplished uses less land.

http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC

[kassy]

Not a very concise write-up.

Those are actual production numbers so they are mainly driven by other things. Chop down a forest grow soy beans and it increases (in the short term). Growing it on less land could be just efficiency so those number don´t really have a clear relation to warming.

[vox_mundi]

... production increased ...

^ and all you had to give up is irreplaceable rainforests, the extinction of a >1000 species/year, and a viable future biosphere for your children.

A small price to pay for a Big Mac w/ Coke and fries. /sarc

[The Walrus]

Not a very concise write-up.

Those are actual production numbers so they are mainly driven by other things. Chop down a forest grow soy beans and it increases (in the short term). Growing it on less land could be just efficiency so those number don´t really have a clear relation to warming.

No, the relationship is not clearly established.  However, the trend is there.  During the 25-year period of fastest warming, food production has seen the highest increase.  Granted, there could be many other compelling factors (and I suspect there are), but it throws some cold water on any claims of food scarcity.  Efficiency is very important, as it means that less land is needed, which bodes well for combatting deforestation.

[gerontocrat]

... production increased ...

^ and all you had to give up is irreplaceable rainforests, the extinction of a >1000 species/year, and a viable future biosphere for your children.

A small price to pay for a Big Mac w/ Coke and fries. /sarc

Thanks for saying that.
+1

[El Cid]

It is a well known fact that agricultural yield have increased a lot in the past 30 years. No need to argue that.

Problem is that all this increase is destroying our soils

[sidd]

I misread the last sentence as "destroying our souls." Wendell Berry might nod.

sidd

[John Batteen]

It's both.  As someone involved in the ag industry, yields have gone up, and more land is under production.  I wish it weren't so, but, alas. 

[El Cid]

I don't know about land cultivated globally but I do know that Europe hasn't had as many forests (areawise) as we have now for at least 100 years. There has been a genuine effort by the EU to reforest and it is working (I know because I used one of these programs to reforest 1,5km2 15 years ago). Agricultural area in the EU is shrinking. I think that is a good thing.

[Tor Bejnar]

It is both!  destroying Earth's soils and our souls.

[Archimid]

Why has agricultural yield increased?

The answer is technology and knowledge is improving efficiency.

Then it makes sense to ask, is there a ceiling to agricultural yields improvements?

There must be, but it may be so high that it doesn't matter.

Can we increment food yields faster than climate change can reduce them?

That depends on two things. How much is the increment in food and how fast is the climate change.

If the climate change is slower than the agricultural improvemnet rate, then yes, we can improve yields faster than climate change can reduce them.

 If the climate change is abrupt, then the answer is very likely no. But even under abrupt climate change "high temperatures" will not be the cause of agricultural failure. Infrastructure loss, war, and chaos will be.

[Tom_Mazanec]

I think drought and flooding and pests will lower food production in an AGW world.

[The Walrus]

Yes, Archimid.  That is why the Nobel committee awarded this years peace prize to the world hunger programme.  World hunger had been decreasing for decades, until armed conflict started using hunger as a weapon.  This has reinforced that world hunger is more a problem of food distribution and poverty, than actual food production.

El CID, I cannot speak for Europe, but in the u.s. forested land has increased and farmland decreased significantly.   

Globally, we produce enough food to feed the entire planet, and then some.  However, poverty and governments have prevented the distribution to those in need.  Rainforests do not need to be cleared to feed people, except for the fact that they cannot afford to buy the food or keep what they produce fresh.

[nanning]

Great posts upthread, beautiful

To go a bit further down the road, in the case there's a global food shortage.
What will the future U.S.A. do when it has had massive harvest failures and there's not enough food on the global market to go round?

Ask pretty please can we have some, steal it using violence, buy it off them for a trillion and let the sellers go hungry, other?

[gerontocrat]

Food insecurity is a fact of life for many....

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/june/who-are-the-world-s-food-insecure-identifying-the-risk-factors-of-food-insecurity-around-the-world/#:~:text=Using%20the%20FIES%2C%20researchers%20found,percent%20in%20high%2Dincome%20countries.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-09/u-s-crop-report-signals-worsening-global-food-insecurity-crisis
U.S. Crop Report Signals Worsening Global Food-Insecurity Crisis

[kassy]

World hunger had been decreasing for decades, until armed conflict started using hunger as a weapon.

The situation as it is now has no predictive value for AGW consequences so you cannot argue that the future is not bad because today is not bad.

Plus you tend to claim these things first without back-up links and then with rather vague ones when pressed. If further posts on the subject don´t show up assume you need either better back-up links or a more cogent argument  or both for your objections.

[El Cid]

visuals on agriyields and area:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/key-crop-yields
https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields

Yields going up up and away the past 30 yrs

Very nice articles about land use and diet with lots of charts:

https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets
https://ourworldindata.org/yields-vs-land-use-how-has-the-world-produced-enough-food-for-a-growing-population


Basically, cultivated area does not seem to grow and it could shrink tremendously, should people reduce meat-eating. On a vegetarian diet, 20 billion can easily be fed: