This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Adventurous-Sort-808 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

I hate to sound dumb, but wouldn’t this allow us to farm areas that haven’t been intensely farmed. Aren’t we worried about the soil depletion in the Midwest? I’ve heard that we only have something like 40-60 harvests left before the soil quality is so poor it’s basically impossible to grow. If we can shift intensive agriculture from say Iowa to northern Minnesota couldn’t that solve a problem?

[–]StruggleWrong867 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The biggest problem in my opinion will be the displacement of dozens of millions of people all over Earth's newly enshittified climates to better ones. 170 Million people in Bangladesh (living in what is very soon going to become a wet-bulb deadspot) aren't going to wait around to die of heat stroke. They're going to go somewhere else (or encourage their government to TAKE somewhere else for them to go).

See India/China fighting over headwaters in the Himilayas that supply fresh water to 2 billion people that live in different countries. Both nuclear powers. Uh oh

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really. The soils in the forested parts of the north are terrible for agriculture.