This is the single, greatest threat to EVERYONE -including those who want to retain power. If they can imagine terrorist scenarios out the wazoo, why can't they give this the same sense of urgency?

The solutions are to:
1. reduce the population, or
2. reduce the per capita impact on the environment, by
a. reducing the available goods and services, or
b. improving the efficiency of production.

All of these have negative effects on important constituencies.

Therefore, business as usual will be the prefered approach, while "hope" is expressed fervently for some magic bullet solution.

...by human beings. With all their shortcomings and self-delusions.

that it will be a catastrophe for the 99%, and not them.

They are, after all, buying up water access rights, and walling themselves up in their green little paradises.

If the shit hits the fan they plan on closing up their doors and hiding while everyone else walks The Road.

back during W's tenure.

They have plans in place. Those plans most likely consist of taking care of themselves and leaving the 99% to fend for themselves. Why do you think W bought 10,000 acres in Paraguay that sits on top of the largest pure water aquifer in the world?

However much some people may hate it, that is part of their plan....to reduce their population to sustainable levels as quickly as possible without just going around and slaughtering the "weaker" half.

And I don't disassociate myself from such opinions. However, as a guy trained in science I have to take exception to the conclusion of global war. It seems like a non sequitur to me.

Yes, it might happen, but only a fool would predict such a thing. And to extrapolate from the dates of previous wars is silly.

Sorry.

Regardless, glad you posted this.
Thx.

Linear systems often exhibit cylic behavior, and cyclic behavior with increasing amplitude is common. Non-linear systems are more complex, but exhibit similar behaviors.

What seems to happen is that a period of war reorganizes political systems, leads to technological innovations, and loosens up the economy. This is followed by a period of relative equality, high growth, and expanded opportunities. However, as time goes on, political systems become more complex, heirarchical, and sclerotic; technology becomes less able to generate significant breakthroughs, rather than incremental improvements; and the economies become more complex, unequal, and rigid. This persists until a crisis occurs.

In the 1380s, the Black Death reduced the population of northern Europe by 1/3 to 1/2. While not a war, this had the same effect of opening up society, freeing resources, and providing flexibility for improvement.

This cycle continued until the Reformation. The Reformation did not involve such extensive wars either, but then, the stresses had not built up too greatly. A lot of peasants were killed in the Peasants War, and there were numbers killed in various persecutions.

The next cycle concluded in the Thiry Years War of 1618-1648. This reduced the population of Germany by 1/3 and involved a wider region of Europe.

The next cycle concluded in the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. By this time, the conflicts were becoming global, and the American Revolution and the British defeat of the French in India can be seen as precursors to the war. Napoleon took an army to Egypt before he took one to Moscow, so the scope increased.

The next cycle conclude in World Wars I&II, which including epidemics, famine, civil wars, pogroms, purges, etc. through the Chinese Revolution cost on the order of 200 million dead from 1914 through 1950.

One feature of the cycles is a sort of reordering of the powers midway through the interregnum. The Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, the unification of Germany, and the unification of Italy mark the "midpoint" of the previous interregnum. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Iron Curtain, the creation of the EU and the economic reorganization of China mark a similar "midpoint" in this one.

Also see economic long cycles. This field was started by the Russian Kondratiev.

I know that extrapolation in chaotic systems is useless.

Saying that these happen in cycles is equally unscientific. That would be called post hoc reasoning, or maybe the Texas sharp-shooter fallacy. At best, it's confirmation bias.

Google logical fallacies.

I apologize for the metaphor ahead of time, but you sound like one of those Bible people who see the end of the world around the corner.

Yes, global warming is likely to cause some strife in the coming decades. But you, nor anybody else knows how that will manifest itself. Running around with ones hair on fire screaming WW III has no basis, and you know it.

When the world wakes up to these problems, which I think is going to happen sooner than later, we'll get her done.

In the meantime, it would be best, IMHO, if we made the argument without setting our hair on fire.

Thanks for your response.

Other factors are exhaustion of easily extracted fossil fuels, depletion of soils, resistance to antibiotics and a decline in medical care, accumulation of various chemical and nuclear pollutants, rising religous conflicts, rising economic inequality, etc.

The only positive trend that I see is the growth of information technology and the increasing communication between all parts of the globe. It may be that this increases understanding and cooperation in ways that can solve some problems and avoid wars.

On the other hand, prior to WW I the continent of Europe was pretty well integrated by the recent developments of steamships, railroads, and telegraph. Most educated people spoke French, and the political, business and intellectual elites were in contact with one another. The heads of state were often first cousins.

It didn't help.

All your arguments, IMHO, are non sequiturs. You are writing checks for which you do not have funds to back up.

I apologize for coming down hard on your opinion. If I didn't like your original post I wouldn't have wasted the time. There may very well be a lot of shit in our future due to climate change, but isn't it a bit excessive for anybody to say that it must include global war?

Just maybe the climate scientists are right here. Climate change will be incremental change which will become apparent to everybody soon enough and we'll all see that we have to unite and get the job done.

I prefer to stay positive rather than run around with my hair on fire screaming totally unwarranted doom and gloom.

Thanks for your OP.

It wouldn't take much to knock down the entire house of cards.

After that, every dispute becomes local.

You won't be fighting people from other continents, you'll be fighting your own countrymen.

Guns are rather old technologies, and metal blades have been produced for a few millenia.

I kind of lean toward the whimper not a bang end of the world scenario, myself. Localized fights over water, food, etc. Mass starvation. Interesting article, btw. Thanks for posting.

However, I think the author has focused his energy in the right place:

War will revert to hand to hand combat and last for a 100yrs.

They are predicting at least a 2 degree Celcius rise in global average temperatures by the end of this century. That's already near catastrophic levels, and the worst case scenarios are on the range of 3 degrees and a little higher. Those kinds of temperature changes will cause mass extinctions of animals and plant species that can't cope fast enough, and ocean level changes could cause even more devastation and population displacement. New Orleans after Katrina is just a preview.

Enormously important topic!

but localized conflicts around the world without a doubt. They're already happening. What are all the genocidal wars in various African countries about? Desertification and fights over resources.