Catastrophic for many, not for all. In particular island nations, and nations already susceptible to drought.
For example, consider the Maldives, with 300,000 people making about $5k/year. Relocating every person in the Maldives to the US would probably be cheaper than most climate change solutions. This would also quadruple the standard of living of the average Maldivian, provided their income increases to the US poverty line.
> For example, consider the Maldives, with 300,000 people making about $5k/year.
The sea level of the Maldives fell by more than 20cm since the 70ies. If the worst of the IPCC predictions come to pass, then the Maldives will still be better of in 2100 than in 1970.
Here is a reference - but you can find many more using Google:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2...
We should definitely use that as the solution to climate change.
You're right that it would increase their incomes. But standard of living is much more than income...
-The poster hadn't considered that argument
-The poster doesn't want to have kids
-The poster will have a finite number of descendants
-The poster's concern for the standard of living of his distant descendants diminish according to distance (for instance, he probably cares a great deal for his children and a similar amount for his grandchildren, but by the time you're talking great-great-grandchildren his empathy has diminished significantly)
-The poster's descendants will not want share his fondness for the Maldives
-The poster's descendants will move away from the Maldives for other reasons
I'm sure you can think of a half dozen other alternatives if you think for a minute.
2. Same as barren.
3. Impossible to know, and under any plausible reckoning of improvement, insufficient to make activation costs predominate.
4. Same as doesn't care.
5. Unlikely; goes against millennia of empirical evidence that people love where they live (nowadays we call that 'patriotism')
6. A fully general counterargument (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Fully_general_counterargument). You can use that to argue against anything: 'You should move away from North Korea', 'Why, my descendants might move away into it for other reasons!'; 'You shouldn't move away from North Korea, then', 'Why, my descendants might then move away elsewhere for other reasons!'
5 (his children may not be fond of the Maldives): You just argued that children are likely to have a fondness for wherever they are born. If true, this invalidates the argument for moving at all: whether his descendants love the Maldives or America will make for no gain at all.
6. (children may move away from Maldives): Actually, given the limited economic and educational opportunities of the Maldives, there's likely to be a fairly high probability of one's children moving. Once we use this probability to work out an EV for "number of descendants resident in the Maldives", or even apply the probability recursively to work out a proportion of descendants resident in the Maldives over an infinite number of generations, your infinity argument is pretty well refuted.
What makes you think people consciously consider it? Most of them just say "I don't feel like moving", or "I'm too lazy". Also, you missed the point of the "fully general counterargument". The point is that if your descendants find it better to be somewhere else later - well, they're fully capable of moving themselves.
"Theoretical and climate model studies suggest that, in a climate that is warming due to increasing greenhouse gases, a greater increase is expected in extreme precipitation, as compared to the mean. Hence, anthropogenic influence may be easier to detect in extreme precipitation than in the mean. This is because extreme precipitation is controlled by the availability of water vapour, while mean precipitation is controlled by the ability of the atmosphere to radiate long-wave energy (released as latent heat by condensation) to space, and the latter is restricted by increasing greenhouse gases." --- http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/chapter2.pdf
> Might it not lead to more rain in some drought-stricken places and less rain in some rainy places?
Yes, in fact some IPCC analysis suggests that North America will see e.g., increased crop variety and yields by 2080, and also e.g., a 40% decrease in Texan farmers' net income and more agricultural disease.
But although climate change isn't uniformly and strictly bad news, it is likely that some places will see catastrophic effects and that in aggregate the changes will be more problematic than beneficial for humans.