Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You said >> some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. You are correct, I did say that, but that's because the probability of that is so close to 1 that it's not worth splitting hairs about. Can that fail to happen? Sure, but for the planet to heat up even by an exceptionally high 10c and have few places near the average is a vanishingly small possibility, and would almost certianly require a change in the e…
But...that's just a complete non sequitur. The proposition wasn't " all the viable land/fishing spots will be destroyed". No one has been arguing that. It was "when we lose this viable fishing spot, another spot that was not viable will become viable ". And there is zero basis for that. So either you have massively failed to state your position clearly, or you are so blatantly moving the goalposts, the dragmarks can…
Stop with the personal attacks - you are obviously emotional about this, and it's clear I am not.
My position is, and always has been, that there is no evidence that modern societies are as dependent on living on, near or around their source of nutrition.
Even an extremely high increase, past what all models predict currently, will still leave net than enough arable land on earth to continue sustaining societies.
I am arguing that an imbalance wide enough for societal collapse is highly unlikely.
My position is absolutely clear, from the very first message in this thread.
You have, variously, 1) strawmanned that I argued cosmic balance, 2) shifted the frame of the argument from societal collapse to individual human suffering, 3) Made personal slurs against me rather than my argument, and 4) Point-blank refused to address my argument, restarted here for the third time.
These optics are not good. Just to be clear, this is what you are supposed to be arguing against (because this is my point): "Climate change on its own will not be sufficient to cause societal collapse."
I cannot see how you have any argument against that, but you have replied so many times that I have to wonder why you are even replying, arguing against an argument that is not being made.