Yes. That’s exactly it. They assume business as usual. And your source is a landing page, not an actual source. And even then, that site doesn’t discuss any effect of climate change on population projections. You just blindly linked to the UN’s population agency.

For every degree of Celsius warming, farm yields of major staple crops decline 16-20%. We’re already at 1.5C warming, and the rate of warming is rapidly increasing. We’re looking at another 0.5-1.5C increase by 2050. There’s no way this doesn’t lead to mass famine on a Biblical scale.

This paper in Nature predict 4-14% in total global food production by 2050 due to climate effects. And these are using the RPC models, which we’re learning are far too conservative in their predictions. I’m sure if everyone in the world went vegan tomorrow, we could absorb a 10% decline in agricultural production, but not a chance in Hell of that happening.

As far as the UN, they do work on climate change, but their population projections don’t factor it into account. Here is a link to the 2024 population prospects summary

When you pull open that PDF, you won’t find mention of climate change being incorporated into their methodology at all. As far as I’m aware, the UN’s figures are purely based on population pyramids, demographic factors, birth rate projections, etc. Demographers don’t like looking at factors beyond just population numbers, gender mixes, and age distributions. Other things, like war and economic policy, can certainly affect population numbers, but those are generally considered too unpredictable to properly model. The population projections you see are purely demographic models.

As far as I know, agricultural yields are never even part of their methodology. They look purely at what ages people are and how many children people of different ages have. They generally assume that resources will be available for those who want to have children. Do you have any evidence that they do take climate effects on agricultural yields into account when making their numbers?

Do you think the ultra wealthy don’t associate and communicate with each other? Why wouldn’t there be private Signal chats composed only of billionaires? It’s not about shared incentives. The “club” part is very literal.

Those projections assume agricultural yields have no effect on human well being or numbers. They don’t factor in climate induced bread basket collapse.

In the worlds of the immortal George Carlin: it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.

“Oh they’re too wide and you’ll have to make the units narrow strips that only have a tiny sliver of window on one side” Do that then.

Some people would be willing to live like that. But the rents per ft^2 or m^2 would be abysmally low. And renovating the buildings would still be very expensive. It may be physically possible to turn those deep floor plate cube farm skyscrapers into housing, but it isn’t financially possible. The money would be better spent tearing the buildings down entirely and just building entirely new residential buildings from scratch.

We are realistically looking at losing between 200 million and 1 billion people over the next 20 years due to climate-change induced famine and heat stroke. Those are realistic estimates. More optimistic scenarios could make that number less, more pessimistic ones could reduce it. We are on the eve of what future histories may refer to as the Great Hunger.

Even for those lucky enough to not live in regions being rendered uninhabitable, the quality of life for the average citizen is collapsing. The developing world will experience mass famine. The developed world will experience food prices not seen since the advent of mechanized agriculture. Home prices will continue to become more unaffordable, as more and more homes are destroyed by rapidly increasing natural disasters. In the US, tens of millions of homeowners are going to have their primary asset, their homes, rendered completely worthless after they become uninsurable. Governments can try to prop up the insurance market if they want, but not even national governments have the resources to subsidize an insurance market in an era of spiraling natural catastrophes.

Leaders around the world see a future of chaos, famine, and strife. Really all the Four Horseman are coming out. In developed countries, leaders fear millions of desperate poor people from developing countries trying to cross their borders. Internally, they fear violence by their own populations, who are seeing their standard of living rapidly collapse.

The borders are being locked down. The walls are going up. People everywhere are being increasingly surveilled and controlled. Political leaders might be cynical enough to deny climate change for political gain, but that doesn’t mean they’re ignorant to the actual future we’re running headfirst into. Technology is also advancing, allowing “mass shooter” type individuals to potentially cause much larger acts of destruction in the future.

Most governments would prefer to maintain power by actually improving the lives of their citizens. That’s the safest and most moral approach. But in a world of rapidly spiraling climate change, governments simply are not capable of on improving the lives of their citizens. They can’t even maintain the standard of living their citizens already have. So, the leaders have to turn to more brute force methods to retain control. Best to be loved. But if you can’t be loved, then at least be feared.

True. But gift economies aren’t really something that can just be implemented by individuals living in a modern state. That requires an entire society to be organized around it. Barter can.

There’s always barter. The vast majority of human beings that have ever lived never once handled currency of any kind.

And one key thing. Fascists and fascist collaborators will claim, “everything you do online and already tracked to your real identity.” But the truth is, if that were already the case, then there wouldn’t be a push for these identity verification laws.

We should haul them into public arenas and feed them to lions. They get off to that sort of thing.

I would prefer a mixed system. All wealth over 1000x the median household income taxed at 100%. So no one should have a fortune larger than that, a number that would be approximately $80 million today. But if you secretly gather a fortune much larger than that? If you somehow secretly amass a fortune 10,000x the median household income? At that point I would apply severe criminal penalties, like a mandatory minimum 20 year sentence. I don’t want to throw the book at someone just because they accidentally let their fortune grow a bit beyond the limit. But if you’re a whole order of magnitude above it? Then that’s when severe criminal penalties should apply. At some point your wealth becomes so large that you personally become a threat to national security. Amassing a fortune in the billions should be treated like a private citizen trying to build their own nuclear bomb. No one should have that much power, and we should treat both the same.

I like the 1000x threshold because that is approximately the maximum possible fortune one can amass in one’s lifetime off of ordinary salary work and extreme frugality.

1000x the median income would be about $80 million. Consider the highest-earning non-executive salaried employees - people who spend years in school in very challenging fields. People like neurosurgeons. Imagine if there was a couple composed of two neurosurgeons, and they earn very good salaries. They’re also so frugal that they spend basically nothing. You have a pair of neurosurgeons literally sleeping on the sidewalk out front of the hospital. They live like that, and they invest and save every penny they can. The highest salaried incomes combined with pathological frugality.

Even if they did all of that. Even if two highly educated workers lived off nothing and saved everything, even then those people would still struggle to earn, over their whole life, a fortune that exceeded 1000x the median household income.

Such a system allows for a capitalism that actually does live up to the marketing. You’re allowed to earn a fortune as large as your own labor and skills will allow. However, the only way to obtain a fortune larger than this is to get into the business of labor arbitrage - hiring other people and harnessing the surplus of their labor. I want people to be able to earn as much money from the sweat of their own brow as they can. But I don’t want people to be able to hoard strategically dangerous fortunes by exploiting the labor of others. And 1000x the median household income is a nice even number that’s easy to explain to people and that achieves this goal.

Having wealth over 1000 times the median family income.