Hacker News Reader

Comment by s5300 | Hacker News Reader

What do you think will happen to the bulk of the population in this time?

Those who are rich enough (or those who seek asylum and are accepted) will leave, and those who are not able to leave will literally roast alive. We are already seeing this today [0], so in 50 to 100 years, the temperatures will be such that no human will be able to live there anymore.

[0] https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-made-...

I would imagine that a catastrophic and sustained rise in temperatures would disrupt agriculture, reducing food production to the point where people starve to death before they roast to death. And in practice people don't just sit there and starve to death - they migrate, with the cooperation of other nations or not.

A lot depends on the rate at which migrants arrive, and where they go. If the migration is towards northern Asia, spread out over 100 years, with only a few tens of thousands arriving each day, Russia will probably be able to manufacture bullets in sufficient quantity. If 1.5 billion Indians descend all at once, nothing will be able to stop them.

These are extreme outcomes. There are so many other possibilities that could be negotiated. Perhaps India will gain economic leverage through exporting solar power, and be able to strike a deal to resettle some of its migrant population elsewhere.

> disrupt agriculture

I understand temperatures are already within a few degrees of the point that proteins in rice and wheat pollens get denatured (cooked, effectively).

Maybe new heat-tolerant strains have been developed since I looked, but I doubt much could withstand 55 celsius throughout flowering.

Do you think we’ll actually see 500mil+ die in India directly from heat & heat related issues in the next 100 years?

I’m very much starting to think we may, but I’m at least hoping they may be able to save themselves from catastrophe via nuclear energy & engineering.

I do think so. Nuclear energy is great but it doesn't take carbon already in the air, so technologies would need to be developed for that. I am a techno-optimist but we are on the precipice in terms of how much time we have left.

I think what he means is using nuclear energy and engineering to reduce heat stress on the population (ie air conditioning etc)

Well, that would also require mechanization and changes to farming practices on a truly massive scale. (Either forests, huge tents or adapted crops with high mechanization.) Housing would have to be vastly improved as well as to not leak the cold out.

I'm not seeing India fielding the cost. Those already well-off would manage anyway... But the rest, which is the majority, is the problem.

The technology already exists to efficiently transform solar power into sugar. If needed, and with 10-20 years of improvements, it should be possible to feed everyone with 100x less agricultural land usage.

When places are hit hard - like in this example from climate change - there usually are no "improvements" and "efficiency tranformations" either: in the downturn, tons of energy is spent in sustaining what's there, and there are no money or resources to spend on new infrastructure.

(And as other countries are also hit, they don't go much for charity or building other's infrastructure, it's "every man/country for himself").

To put it simply: when things go to shit is not the time when new infrastructures are built.

Completely agree. I am just thinking that it should be possible to make standalone units, which should be able to produce food from air. Units that do not need any infrastructure. Which is a new concept. The alternative is to try agriculture in unstable environments, or depend on continuous help from outside. Of course there is still a need for rich helpful countries to develop and build these fictional devices.

Even if it plays out that way, I wonder if it plays out slowly or fast. For example, it could play out as increased rate of death due to cardivascular issues, somewhat "invisible" over time, or that people die in droves on particular hot days. In the end, it is terrible in both ways, but the perception in news etc would be different.

People will migrate to other countries or other parts of their own countries leading to war and strife.

You can already see this happening in parts of Africa.

They will try to migrate northwards - right into hostile neighbours (china or pakistan), which will escalate into conflict. Regional nuclear exchange.

Well, obviously they will do the responsible thing and clean up all their hazardous wastes before they migrate north.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com