Too bad that China's GINI is about equal to the United States' -- with India being a bit better (!!).
So again, why do you hate brown/yellow people foreigners?
Oh Shepples, I love how gloriously dishonest you are. You so cheerfully take a two-factor solution to a problem, and then construct your own strawman to make it look like I claimed the solution was single factor. Those same regressions I ran showed that on its own, economic growth makes matters WORSE because it increases variance in income, thus creating a gambling mentality when it comes to child birth. Eagles lay two eggs because under normal conditions they can raise one, but in exceptional conditions can raise two, and it always helps to have an insurance policy in case one egg does not hatch. The same is true of people in the third world. They have more kids than they can feed on the off chance that conditions will improve. Increased economic growth without an increase in what the poor actually SEE, creates the impression in their little minds that they may be able to actually support 8 kids, when normally it may be optimal to have far fewer.
The reason the US does not have this issue is because per capita GDP is already sufficiently high that the variation in outcome for individuals families is largely smoothed out. Even here though, the poor have more kids than they can actually afford, FOR THE SAME FUCKING REASONS AFRICANS DO.
Right now the growing season in Northern Siberia and the Northern Canadian Shield is about 3 months or less. If you can raise this to four months via CC, the lower edges will become economic to grow at.
Not with their soils dumbfuck. Or did you ignore that part? Yes. You can grow things in a few areas, but not enough to actually compensate for the loss of the world's breadbaskets.
The last time human civilization underwent climate change on a scale this large as is hypothesized, we were basically hunter-gatherers with virtually no technic base to speak of and our food pyramid was highly susceptible to climactic change through prey animal's ranges shrinking or moving.
Now? We have highly advanced agriculture and animal husbandry methods, a whole courncoupia of portable power production methods ranging from ye olde ICE running off anything from gasoline to a variety of other fuels to future technologies like fuel cells.
Those agricultural and animal husbandry methods are still heavily climate dependent, and have massive down sides which in the long term will (and are in the process of) actually decrease the ability of the system to support those same agricultural methods.
1)High intensity agriculture creates groundwater and river depletion. The irrigation necessary to produce enough food to feed over seven billion people drains the ground water table and river systems. This creates some rather nasty problems. The first is that it decreases the long term ability to irrigate with ground water and river systems. The second is that the rivers that no longer reach the ocean do not carry nutrients back to the ocean and fucks up global nutrient cycling. Nutrients get bound up on the continents and decrease the productivity of marine ecosystems already stressed by over-exploitation.
2)The nutrient input is another problem. Agricultural runoff in freshwater systems creates some nasty environmental problems by causing eutrophication, which is not good for river systems as a general rule. In the cases of rivers (such as the Mississippi) that still reach the ocean, the outflow is so over-loaded with nutrients that it eutrophicates the oceans, particularly the river delta systems that serve as the breeding grounds for commercially important food stocks. This creates massive anoxic dead zones which further stress our already collapsing fisheries. To say nothing of the lost intrinsic value held by everything else in those systems. The nutrients combined with irrigation create other problems. The soil that the plants are grown in get over-loaded with salts. Remember what the romans did to carthage? It also destroys topsoil.
The particular problems will, without the effects of climate change, lead to the collapse of our ability to feed ourselves, dropping the earth's carrying capacity below its previous value of ~4 billion because even traditional pre-green-revolution organic methods will be less effective than they were before.
With climate change in the equation matters get worse
Climate change causes a global average increase in temperature. This increases evaporation. Increased evaporation means that irrigation will have to be intensified, leading to the salinification of soils and the loss of top soil accelerating. It will also increase the time between rainfall events, and increase the intensity thereof. This creates dry soil conditions, increases runoff and decreases the retention of nutrients and pesticides in the soil, causing more soil damage and increased damage to surrounding ecosystems. This is because—like a dry sponge-- dry soils do not absorb water as quickly as soil that is more moist. As a result, the water that get dumped on it does not get absorbed into the soil, does not recharge the ground water table, and does not get efficiently taken up by plants. This will speed up—again--the problems with soil retention, salinization, and create an inability to sufficiently irrigate. It will also create larger anaoxic dead zones.
Can you say “trophic collapse”? I can.
This isn't some cockamania crap like a holy bible to latch on to and 'sincerely' believe in a god. It is ludicrous and by your own admission we can't convince them anyway.
