>> Did you actually READ the article.

Something else that is useful to read are the Hacker News posting guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

In particular the following suggestions:

Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized.

This doesn't contradict warnings that our current agricultural systems are prone to sudden collapse. Soil erosion, water pollution, changing weather patterns, and over reliance on fertilizer and pesticides in a monoculture environment could cause a precipitous drop in yields over just a few years. We may be over spending from the credit card, so to speak.

Your point seems to be that so long as we can keep shoveling food into people's mouths, the rest of the effects of climate change are irrelevant.

That's bullshit. As the climate shifts "natural disasters" increase and make many places less habitable. We're already seeing this now and it's only getting worse. As these places slowly become uninhabitable, people immigrate or die and poor people are on the cusp of that.

I suppose this article is from Forbes so it's all about how fairly wealthy people will fair so the chipper attitude makes sense.

The article states that fewer people die of natural disasters. If you want to go to a pre-industrial state, I certainly support your decision. But, please, do not condemn billions of people to death.

Of course, I will call out you "climate shifts ... make many places less habitable". Name one. Anywhere on the planet.

Stop the stupid hyperbole. Suggesting climate change is going to have massive negative impacts does not mean "Go to a pre-industrial state", not even remotely. It's likely the only way we'll get through this mess right now is through the use of technology.

The region most at risk of famine-driven political change is North India - if the wheat growing belt shifts far enough because of climate change there will be massive disruption.

African agricultural productivity is so low that proper technical (and institutional) investment can easily cover the expected (large) population growth in the 21st cent.

Climate change will be catastrophic if we don't decarbonize sufficiently, but it will not be apocalyptic.

Hopefully there's more to life than having enough food to eat.

The FAO report says, roughly, that climate change will have strong adverse effects on crop yields but this will be offset by growing industrialization. In short, that once you fill Kenya and India with a bunch of GPS-controlled John Deere tractors and factory farms so that it looks like Iowa, they'll produce more food than they are now even though climate change will hurt them badly.