I read most of it (I would have preferred study links so I could look at the uncertainties but whatevs) and it basically just said, everything's fucked and our only hope is to go back to small scale agriculture (which would require massive, massive population loss).
Like, the next century is gonna be touch and go for humanity (certainly at our current levels of technological sophistication) but just saying we're doomed is entirely unhelpful.
Yeah, the article does a good job of presenting the problem, but it's solution of hey, let's go back to the 19th century sounds very...naive. We don't have to go backward in order to progress. We've been living unsustainably and wrecking the environment for the past 200 years.
Unfortunately, it's going to take us a lot longer to fix this problem than it did to create it. Hopefully that will be an important lesson learned for future generations.
> Yeah, the article does a good job of presenting the problem, but it's solution of hey, let's go back to the 19th century sounds very...naive.
As well as his/her proposed solution requiring most of the current population to die first as non-fertilizer based agriculture (certainly local agriculture) is really unlikely to be able to feed all of us.
