No, it's not good enough. I see I got some downvotes: suits me, not like I actually LIKE this position. I'm just being a bit pedantic, saying that we will not be looking at human extinction no matter what. It's setting a boundary on the doomsaying, and also setting a bar for what we're gonna have to do.
I think everybody in control of things understands we will be seeing just what you say: hunger, conflict, massive waves of refugees, war. Water shortages may be even more significant than food shortages, and given modern supply chain capabilities, wet-bulb temperature conditions might be the most significant of all.
Humanity will get through this. The important question is how: and every downvoter to that comment knows that there are unacceptable answers to this. I think getting through without descending into monstrous behavior and inhumanity IS POSSIBLE and easier than colonizing Mars. But it's gonna be nearly as difficult to make happen, as colonizing Mars.
The easy out is the bad answers. That's not going to be acceptable. We're all stuck on this rock together.
I think everybody in control of things understands we will be seeing just what you say: hunger, conflict, massive waves of refugees, war. Water shortages may be even more significant than food shortages, and given modern supply chain capabilities, wet-bulb temperature conditions might be the most significant of all.
Humanity will get through this. The important question is how: and every downvoter to that comment knows that there are unacceptable answers to this. I think getting through without descending into monstrous behavior and inhumanity IS POSSIBLE and easier than colonizing Mars. But it's gonna be nearly as difficult to make happen, as colonizing Mars.
The easy out is the bad answers. That's not going to be acceptable. We're all stuck on this rock together.