Looking at global temperature data, a clear and concerning trend emerges:

The Current Situation: Getting Hotter

• Record-Breaking Temperatures: 2024 was the warmest year on record since global records began in 1850. The ten warmest years in the 175-year record have all occurred during the last decade (2015-2024).
• Accelerated Warming: While the Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of about 0.11° Fahrenheit (0.06° Celsius) per decade since 1850, the rate of warming since 1982 is more than three times as fast: 0.36° F (0.20° C) per decade.¹
• Widespread Warming: Global temperatures in 2024 were above the 1991-2020 average across most of the planet.² More areas are warming than cooling, with the most dramatic differences seen in the Arctic.³

Conclusion: Are We Better or Worse? Is Man Doing It Right?

Based on the data, the conclusion is that we are worse off in terms of global temperatures, and it indicates that humanity is not “doing it right” when it comes to managing the planet’s climate.

Here’s why:

• Human Activities are the Primary Cause: The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) and deforestation, are the main drivers of the observed warming.⁴ These activities release large amounts of greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide and methane) into the atmosphere, trapping heat and causing temperatures to rise.⁵
• Significant Deviation from Natural Variability: While natural factors like solar radiation and volcanic activity can influence climate, their contribution to the current warming trend is estimated to be minimal (less than ±0.1°C between 1850 and 2019). The rapid and unprecedented warming observed, especially in recent decades, cannot be explained by natural variability alone.
• Consequences are Already Being Felt: The increasing temperatures are leading to various impacts, including sea-level rise, more intense extreme weather events (like heat waves, droughts, and floods), and threats to food production, health, and ecosystems.⁶ Vulnerable communities are often disproportionately affected.⁷

In summary: The data unequivocally points to a rapidly warming planet, with the last decade being the hottest on record.⁸ This trend is overwhelmingly attributed to human activities, indicating that our current approach is leading to detrimental consequences for the global climate and, by extension, for humanity and the natural world.⁹

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

The Earth will eventually become uninhabitable for humans, but the timeline depends on whether we’re talking about climate change or the Sun’s natural evolution.

Due to Climate Change:

• Regional Uninhabitability (within decades): Some regions of the planet could become uninhabitable due to extreme heat and humidity, making outdoor survival impossible without significant technological intervention (like air conditioning).¹ Some projections suggest this could happen in certain areas within 30-50 years, and certainly by 2500 if emissions aren’t drastically reduced.² These impacts include increased heatwaves, droughts, floods, and wildfires, leading to food and water insecurity.³
• Widespread Challenges (within centuries): If current trends continue, climate change will lead to significant disruptions and challenges globally, impacting agriculture, infrastructure, and human health. While the entire planet won’t be universally uninhabitable, many areas will become increasingly difficult to live in, leading to mass migrations and increased humanitarian crises.

Due to the Sun’s Natural Evolution (Billions of Years):

• Long-term Habitability: Earth is expected to remain generally habitable for complex life for another 1 to 2.3 billion years, assuming no other catastrophic events.
• Physiological Limits: Roughly 1.3 billion years from now, sustained hot and humid conditions due to the Sun’s increasing luminosity will make it physiologically impossible for humans to survive in nature on Earth.
• Ocean Evaporation: In about 2 billion years, the Sun’s luminosity will increase by nearly 20%, likely causing the oceans to evaporate.
• Ultimate End: The Sun will eventually expand into a red giant in about 5-7 billion years, engulfing Earth and making it completely uninhabitable.⁴

In summary, while the Earth will remain capable of supporting some form of life for billions of years, the habitability for humans is a much more immediate concern due to climate change. Our actions in the coming decades will significantly determine how soon and how severely we face widespread unhabitable in many regions.

Given the projections and current trends, here are some categories of places that are generally considered “bad” to build in right now for the future, especially considering long-term habitability and resilience:

1. Low-lying Coastal Areas and River Deltas:

• Reason: Sea-level rise is a major and accelerating threat. Coastal flooding, storm surges, and saltwater intrusion into freshwater sources will become increasingly severe.
• Examples (globally):
  • Southeast Asia: Bangkok (Thailand), Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam), Manila (Philippines), Jakarta (Indonesia), and much of Bangladesh. These cities are particularly vulnerable due to low elevation and, in some cases, land subsidence from groundwater extraction.
  • United States: Miami (Florida), New Orleans (Louisiana), cities along the Gulf Coast, and parts of the Mid-Atlantic coast (e.g., Charleston, SC).
  • Europe: Amsterdam (Netherlands), Venice (Italy), some coastal areas of the UK.

2. Arid and Semi-Arid Regions Prone to Water Scarcity:

• Reason: Climate change is exacerbating droughts and reducing freshwater supplies in already dry areas. Increasing populations will also put more strain on these limited resources.
• Examples:
  • Middle East & North Africa (MENA): Countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and many others in this region face extreme water stress.
  • Sub-Saharan Africa: Many countries, including Ethiopia, Somalia, Chad, and Niger, are experiencing severe water crises.
  • South Asia: India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh face major shortages due to population growth, poor management, and erratic monsoons.
  • Southwestern US: States like Arizona, California, Nevada, and parts of Texas are already grappling with prolonged droughts and dwindling water supplies.

3. Regions Prone to Extreme Heat:

• Reason: Heatwaves are becoming more frequent, severe, and prolonged. This poses direct health risks, strains infrastructure (power grids), and makes outdoor work or even living without consistent cooling extremely challenging.
• Examples:
  • US: The “Corn Belt” (parts of the Plains and Central Mississippi Valley), the Southern US (e.g., Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee), and parts of the Southwest (Phoenix, Las Vegas).
  • Globally: Many tropical and subtropical regions, and even some traditionally temperate zones, are experiencing unprecedented heat.

4. Areas with High Wildfire Risk:

• Reason: Drier conditions, increased temperatures, and prolonged droughts are fueling more frequent and intense wildfires, threatening homes, infrastructure, and air quality.
• Examples:
  • Western US: California, Montana, Colorado, Nevada.
  • Australia: Parts of Australia are increasingly vulnerable to severe bushfires.
  • Mediterranean Basin: Southern Europe (e.g., Spain, Greece) is seeing an increase in wildfires.

5. Regions Dependent on Disappearing Glaciers or Snowpack:

• Reason: Many river systems and water supplies globally depend on the seasonal melt of glaciers and snowpack. As these sources shrink due to global warming, downstream communities will face severe water shortages.
• Examples: Communities relying on glacial melt from the Himalayas (impacting parts of India, China), the Andes (impacting parts of South America), and the Rocky Mountains (impacting parts of the Western US).

6. Areas with Inadequate Infrastructure and Low Adaptive Capacity:

• Reason: Even in less climate-impacted areas, poor infrastructure, lack of governance, and high poverty levels can make a region highly vulnerable to any climate shock. These areas often lack the resources to adapt or rebuild after disasters.
• Examples: Many low- and middle-income nations, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia, despite potentially lower direct climate impacts, are highly vulnerable due to limited capacity to respond.

When considering future building, it’s crucial to look at comprehensive climate risk assessments that account for multiple hazards (e.g., heat, water, sea level, extreme weather) and a region’s ability to adapt.

From a sustainability and long-term habitability perspective, there’s a strong argument that humanity should actively work to slow population growth. Here’s why, based on the information available:

1. Resource Depletion:

• A growing population, especially combined with increasing per capita consumption (particularly in developed nations), places immense strain on finite natural resources like water, energy (fossil fuels), minerals, and arable land.¹
• We are already consuming resources faster than the Earth can regenerate them.² For example, by 2050, an additional 1 billion people are projected to live in areas facing extremely high water stress.

2. Environmental Degradation:

• More people generally mean more waste, pollution (air, water, plastic), and greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating climate change.
• To accommodate a larger population, natural habitats are destroyed for agriculture, housing, and infrastructure, leading to deforestation and a dramatic loss of biodiversity. Wildlife populations have plummeted, and many species are threatened with extinction.³

3. Climate Change Acceleration:

• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific bodies have recognized population growth as a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and a “key impediment” to limiting global warming.⁴
• Each additional person adds to the carbon footprint, and while per capita emissions are much higher in developed countries, total emissions are driven by both population size and consumption patterns.

4. Strain on Infrastructure and Services:

• Rapid population growth, particularly in urban areas, can outpace the development of essential infrastructure like housing, transportation, healthcare, and education, leading to overcrowding and reduced quality of life.⁵

5. Food Security Challenges:

• Meeting the food demands of a growing population is becoming increasingly difficult, especially with climate change impacting crop yields and water availability.⁶ This can lead to food shortages and higher prices, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities.

Potential Solutions and Approaches:

It’s important to note that “slowing population growth” is generally approached through ethical and empowering means, not coercive ones. Key strategies include:

• Empowering Women and Girls: Providing access to quality education for girls and women significantly correlates with lower fertility rates.
• Accessible Family Planning: Ensuring widespread access to voluntary and effective contraception and reproductive healthcare allows individuals to make informed choices about family size.⁷
• Poverty Reduction: As countries develop and poverty decreases, fertility rates often naturally decline.
• Sustainable Consumption: Addressing overconsumption, especially in high-income countries, is equally crucial, as per capita consumption can have a greater environmental impact than population growth in some contexts.

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) implicitly address many of these factors, recognizing the interconnectedness of poverty, education, gender equality, health, and environmental sustainability. While the SDGs don’t explicitly target population reduction, many of their goals (like gender equality, quality education, and good health) are known to contribute to slower, more sustainable population dynamics.

In conclusion, from a long-term perspective of planetary habitability and human well-being, advising humanity to slow population growth, through ethical and empowering means, is a widely supported recommendation among environmental scientists and sustainability advocates.

You’re absolutely right to highlight this. The consensus among scientists, economists, and environmental organizations is that our current global consumption patterns of Earth’s minerals, fossil fuels, and other natural resources are unsustainable.

Here’s a breakdown of why:

1. Finite Resources:

• Fossil Fuels (Oil, Coal, Gas): These are non-renewable resources formed over millions of years. While we still have reserves, burning them at our current rate is rapidly depleting them. The environmental impact of their extraction and combustion (greenhouse gas emissions leading to climate change) is an even more pressing concern than their eventual physical depletion.
• Minerals: While the Earth has vast quantities of many elements, easily accessible, high-grade mineral deposits are finite. As we extract more, we have to go deeper, to more remote locations, or process lower-grade ores. This makes extraction more energy-intensive, environmentally damaging, and expensive. Critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements, vital for the clean energy transition (batteries, solar panels, wind turbines), are seeing surging demand, creating concerns about their sustainable supply.

2. Environmental Impacts of Extraction and Processing:

• Habitat Destruction: Mining, drilling, and infrastructure development associated with resource extraction lead to deforestation, land degradation, and the destruction of ecosystems, causing biodiversity loss.
• Pollution:
  • Water: Mining operations consume vast amounts of water and can contaminate local water sources with heavy metals, chemicals, and acid mine drainage. Oil and gas extraction also carries risks of spills and contamination.
  • Air: Energy-intensive mining and processing (e.g., smelting) release significant amounts of greenhouse gases and other pollutants into the atmosphere.
  • Soil: Contamination from waste and chemicals can render land infertile for long periods.
• Waste Generation: The extraction and processing of raw materials generate massive amounts of waste, including tailings (mine waste) that can pose long-term environmental hazards.

3. Economic and Social Consequences:

• Increased Costs and Volatility: As easily accessible resources deplete, extraction costs rise, leading to higher prices for raw materials and finished goods. Supply chain disruptions due to geopolitical factors or environmental disasters become more likely.
• Resource Nationalism and Conflict: Competition for dwindling resources can exacerbate geopolitical tensions and even lead to conflicts, particularly over critical minerals.
• Social Injustice: The environmental and social burdens of resource extraction often fall disproportionately on vulnerable communities, including Indigenous populations, who may face displacement, health issues, and loss of livelihoods.

4. The “Rebound Effect” of the Green Transition:

• While shifting to renewable energy is essential, it’s not without its own resource challenges. Technologies like electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels require significant amounts of specific minerals (e.g., copper, lithium, cobalt, nickel). This means that while we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, we increase our reliance on mined minerals.

Can We Sustain It?

No, not at the current rate and with current practices. Continuing “business as usual” will lead to:

• Accelerated climate change due to fossil fuel combustion.
• Widespread environmental degradation and biodiversity collapse.
• Resource scarcity leading to economic instability and potential conflicts.
• Diminished quality of life for many, especially the most vulnerable.

What are the solutions?

To move towards a more sustainable future, we need a multifaceted approach:

• Transition to Renewable Energy: Rapidly phasing out fossil fuels and scaling up solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources.
• Circular Economy Principles: Moving away from a linear “take-make-dispose” model to one that prioritizes:
  • Reduce: Consuming less, designing products for longevity.
  • Reuse: Finding new uses for products.
  • Recycle: Recovering materials from end-of-life products to reintroduce them into the supply chain.
• Technological Innovation: Developing new materials that require fewer critical minerals, improving extraction efficiency, and finding less impactful mining methods (e.g., geothermal lithium extraction).
• Improved Governance and Regulations: Implementing stronger environmental protections, ensuring responsible sourcing, and addressing human rights in mining supply chains.
• Behavioral Change: Shifting societal values towards less materialistic consumption and greater appreciation for natural resources.

It’s a monumental challenge, but the understanding that current patterns are unsustainable is a crucial first step toward driving the necessary changes.

That’s a profound question, and the answer has two very different timescales:

1. “Natural” End (Billions of Years):

• Sun’s Evolution: The ultimate, inescapable end for humanity on Earth will come as the Sun evolves.
  • In about 1 to 1.3 billion years, the Sun will become significantly brighter, making the Earth too hot for human physiological survival and causing the oceans to evaporate. Complex life as we know it will likely cease to exist on Earth’s surface.
  • In approximately 5 to 7.5 billion years, the Sun will expand into a red giant, likely engulfing and vaporizing the Earth entirely.
• Other Astronomical Events: Over timescales of hundreds of millions of years, there’s always a risk from unpredictable events like large asteroid impacts or a nearby supernova, but these are statistically less likely than the Sun’s predictable evolution.

2. “Self-Inflicted” End or Catastrophic Disruption (Decades to Centuries):

This is the much more immediate and concerning timeframe, driven by human actions:

• Climate Change: While human extinction by climate change alone is considered a very low probability by many climate scientists, it poses an existential threat to civilization as we know it.
  • Within decades (by 2050-2100): Many regions could become effectively uninhabitable for large populations due to extreme heat and humidity, lack of water, or rising sea levels. This would lead to mass migrations, resource wars, widespread disease, and societal collapse. It wouldn’t mean the end of all humans, but a drastically reduced and struggling population.
  • Within centuries: If current trends continue unabated, the planet could experience feedback loops that lead to runaway warming, making survival increasingly difficult for any large, organized human societies.
• Resource Depletion: As we discussed, current consumption of minerals, fossil fuels, and other natural resources is unsustainable. A collapse of resource systems could lead to:
  • Economic collapse and widespread poverty.
  • Global conflicts over remaining resources.
  • Inability to sustain modern technological civilization.
• Biodiversity Loss and Ecosystem Collapse: The rapid extinction of species and the degradation of ecosystems undermine the very life-support systems of the planet (e.g., pollination, water purification, soil fertility). A collapse of key ecosystems could lead to food shortages and widespread famine.
• Other Existential Risks: Experts in existential risk also consider:
  • Nuclear War: A large-scale nuclear exchange could trigger a “nuclear winter,” devastating global climate and agriculture.
  • Pandemics: Naturally occurring or engineered pandemics could have a catastrophic impact on human population.
  • Uncontrolled Artificial Intelligence: The development of superintelligent AI without proper safety measures could pose an unpredictable threat.

In essence, “how long does man have” depends on what kind of “end” you’re asking about.

• If we manage to overcome our current self-made challenges, humanity could potentially survive on Earth for a billion years or more, possibly even technologically modifying our planet or moving to other celestial bodies as the Sun evolves.
• However, if we fail to address critical issues like climate change and unsustainable resource use, the comfortable, technologically advanced civilization we have built could face catastrophic disruption or even collapse within the next 50 to 200 years, leading to a much smaller, struggling human population living in harsher conditions. The path we choose now will determine which of these futures unfolds.

The Earth’s temperature by 2050 to 2100 depends heavily on global greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades.¹ However, even with significant efforts to reduce emissions, some level of warming is already “locked in” due to past emissions.

Here’s a summary of projections, primarily from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading international body for assessing climate change:

By 2050:

• Global average temperatures are projected to warm by about 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. In fact, some reports indicate there’s an 80% likelihood that the annual average global temperature will temporarily exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for at least one of the next five years (2024-2028), though this is distinct from a long-term average.
• Even with ambitious emissions reductions, the world is likely to temporarily breach the 1.5°C threshold in the near term.²

By 2100:

The projections for 2100 vary widely depending on the emissions scenarios:

• If emissions are drastically reduced (most optimistic scenarios, like reaching net-zero emissions by 2050): Global warming could be limited to around 1.5°C to 2.0°C (2.7°F to 3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels. However, many experts now believe that staying below 1.5°C of long-term warming is highly challenging, if not out of reach, without unprecedented action.
• If current policies and trends continue (“middle-of-the-road” scenarios): Projections suggest a warming of around 2.7°C (4.9°F) by 2100.
• If emissions continue to grow unchecked (“high-emission” or “worst-case” scenarios): Global temperatures could rise by 3.3°C to 5.7°C (5.9°F to 10.3°F) or even higher by the end of the century. Some scientists even warn of a minimum of 4°C (7.2°F) if current emissions aren’t cut.

Key Points to Understand:

• Pre-industrial levels: These temperature increases are measured against the average global temperature before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (typically taken as 1850-1900).³ The Earth has already warmed by approximately 1.1°C (2.0°F) since that time.
• Global Average vs. Regional Impacts: These are global average temperatures. Regional warming will vary significantly, with land areas generally warming more than oceans, and polar regions warming at a much faster rate than the global average.⁴
• Impacts: Even relatively small increases in global average temperature lead to significant and increasingly severe impacts, including:
  • More frequent and intense heatwaves
  • Changes in precipitation patterns (more severe droughts in some areas, heavier rainfall and flooding in others)⁵
  • Sea-level rise (due to thermal expansion of water and melting ice sheets/glaciers)⁶
  • Increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events (storms, wildfires)⁷
  • Threats to food and water security
  • Increased risks to human health⁸

The decisions made by governments, industries, and individuals in the very near future will critically determine where Earth’s temperature lands within these projected ranges by 2050 and 2100.

It’s a nuanced picture, but the prevailing demographic projections suggest that the global human population is not expected to “dwindle” by 2100 in absolute terms, but rather its growth will slow significantly, and it may even begin a gradual decline towards the very end of the century.

Here’s a breakdown of the key points from major population projections (like those from the United Nations and other research institutions):

1. Peak Population by Mid-to-Late Century:

• Most projections indicate that the world population will continue to grow for several more decades.
• The United Nations (UN) currently projects a peak around 10.3 to 10.4 billion people in the mid-2080s.
• Other models, like those from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), predict an earlier and lower peak, possibly in the 2060s or 2070s, at around 9.4 to 9.7 billion, followed by a decline to around 8 billion by 2100.

2. Slowing Growth and Eventual Decline:

• The global population growth rate has already been declining due to falling fertility rates worldwide.¹
• By 2100, the UN’s “medium variant” projection shows the population at around 10.2 to 10.9 billion, with growth effectively near zero or even slightly negative.
• Other models forecast a more significant decline after the peak, potentially reaching around 6 to 8 billion by 2100.

3. Regional Differences are Key:

• Declining Populations: Many developed countries, and increasingly some large developing countries (like China and potentially India after its peak), are projected to experience population decline well before 2100 due to fertility rates falling below replacement levels (roughly 2.1 children per woman). For example, China’s population is already shrinking and is projected to fall dramatically by 2100.²
• Continued Growth (primarily Africa): Most of the global population growth for the rest of this century is projected to come from sub-Saharan Africa. Countries like Nigeria, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Tanzania are expected to see significant population increases.³
• Migration as a Factor: For some countries with low birth rates, immigration is expected to be a key driver in offsetting population decline and maintaining or slightly increasing population size (e.g., the United States, Canada, Australia).⁴

4. The “Dwindling” Aspect (Qualitative vs. Quantitative):

• While the overall number of humans isn’t projected to “dwindle” significantly globally by 2100 in most mainstream scenarios (it will still be higher than today’s 8.2 billion), the rate of growth will be much slower, and many individual countries will indeed be experiencing absolute population decline.
• The idea of “dwindling” might also refer to the quality of life and societal stability in the face of environmental crises (climate change, resource scarcity) or the challenges of an aging global population (fewer working-age people to support a larger elderly population). These pressures could lead to significant societal disruptions even if the total population number is still high.

In summary, it’s more accurate to say that by 2100, human population growth will have peaked and potentially begun a gradual decline, with significant regional variations, rather than a sharp global “dwindling” in numbers. However, the environmental and resource pressures of a still very large population, combined with demographic shifts like aging, will pose substantial challenges.

It’s highly probable that many countries will indeed implement stricter or even “refusal” policies regarding certain types of immigration between 2050 and 2100, especially in response to unprecedented environmental and demographic pressures.

Here’s why:

1. Increased Migration Pressures:

• Climate Change-Induced Displacement: This is arguably the biggest driver. Estimates vary, but projections suggest anywhere from tens of millions to over a billion people could be displaced by climate change by 2050, due to sea-level rise, extreme heat, desertification, water scarcity, and agricultural collapse. The majority of this displacement is initially expected to be internal (within countries), but as conditions worsen, cross-border migration will inevitably surge.
• Demographic Imbalances: While some developed countries face aging and shrinking populations (e.g., Japan, China, much of Europe), many developing regions (especially Sub-Saharan Africa) will experience significant population growth. This creates a powerful “push” factor for migration from regions with fewer opportunities and resources to those perceived as having more.
• Economic Inequality and Political Instability: These long-standing drivers of migration are likely to persist and intensify, particularly as climate change exacerbates poverty and resource competition in vulnerable areas.

2. Developed Countries’ Motivations to Restrict:

• Resource Strain: Even wealthier nations, if faced with millions of climate migrants, could struggle to provide adequate housing, water, food, and social services. This could lead to public and political pressure to limit inflows.
• Social Cohesion and Integration Challenges: Large-scale, rapid migration can strain social services and lead to xenophobia or social unrest if not managed carefully.
• National Security Concerns: Governments may perceive uncontrolled migration as a national security risk, leading to more militarized borders and stricter entry requirements.
• Lack of Legal Frameworks for Climate Migrants: Currently, international law (like the 1951 Refugee Convention) does not explicitly recognize “climate refugees.” This means that those displaced purely by environmental factors often lack legal protection, making it easier for countries to deny them entry. While some efforts are underway to address this gap, it’s a slow process.
• Domestic Political Pressure: Anti-immigrant sentiment is already a powerful force in many countries, and this could intensify with perceived increased pressure, leading to more restrictive policies.

3. Countervailing Forces and Complexities:

• Demographic Necessity: Ironically, some developed countries with rapidly aging and declining workforces might eventually need immigration to sustain their economies, tax bases, and social security systems. This could create a tension between the political desire to restrict and the economic necessity to accept.
• Planned Migration: Some experts argue that in order to cope with climate change impacts, there will need to be planned and managed migration on a scale not seen before. This would require international cooperation and new legal frameworks.
• Adaptation Efforts: Investment in climate adaptation and resilience in vulnerable countries could reduce the number of people forced to migrate. However, these efforts are often insufficient and unevenly distributed.

Conclusion:

It’s highly probable that many countries will continue, and likely intensify, policies aimed at refusing or severely restricting various forms of immigration, particularly if the scale of climate-induced migration becomes overwhelming. The lack of a robust international legal framework for climate migrants further facilitates such refusals.

However, the reality will likely be a complex mix of:

• Some countries maintaining or even increasing selective immigration for economic reasons (e.g., skilled workers, to offset aging populations).
• Fortified borders and increased refusals for irregular migrants and those seeking asylum based purely on environmental displacement.
• Increased internal displacement within countries as people move from highly vulnerable to less vulnerable regions.
• Potential for greater international cooperation on managed migration and resettlement, but only if the scale of the crisis truly forces a global coordinated response, which is far from guaranteed.

The period between 2050 and 2100 will likely be defined by unprecedented human mobility and intense debates and challenges around who is allowed to move and where.

The concern about the U.S. not being able to feed itself by 2100 due to farmland loss is a serious one, but the actual outcome is complex and depends on a combination of factors beyond just acreage.

Current Trends in U.S. Farmland Loss:

• Significant Loss: Between 2001 and 2016, the U.S. lost or compromised an alarming 2,000 acres of farmland and ranchland every day.¹ This amounted to 11 million acres in just 15 years.² Projections indicated another 18.4 million acres could be converted between 2016 and 2040.³
• Most Productive Land at Risk: Nearly half of this conversion occurs on the nation’s most productive, versatile, and resilient farmland, which is particularly concerning because it takes significantly more marginal land to make up for the loss of high-quality land.⁴
• Development as a Key Driver: A large portion of this loss is due to urban sprawl and low-density residential development.⁵

Factors Counteracting Farmland Loss (and complicating the prediction):

1. Increased Yields through Technology and Breeding: Historically, the U.S. has been incredibly successful at increasing crop yields per acre through advancements in agricultural technology, genetics (improved crop varieties), fertilizers, and irrigation.⁶ This trend of “doing more with less” has largely offset past farmland losses and will likely continue.
2. Climate Change Impacts on Productivity: This is a major wildcard. While some regions might see longer growing seasons or new arable land due to warming, others will face increased droughts, extreme heat, floods, and new pest pressures, which can significantly reduce yields.⁷ The U.S. Midwest, a major breadbasket, is projected to be particularly hard hit under high warming scenarios, with potential yield losses of 41% for staple crops in wealthy regions by 2100.
3. Adaptation Strategies: Farmers are already adapting by changing planting dates, selecting more climate-suited crop varieties, and improving water and nutrient management.⁸ These adaptations can partially offset climate-related yield losses.
4. Dietary Shifts: A significant shift in American dietary habits (e.g., away from high meat consumption, which is resource-intensive, towards more plant-based diets) could greatly reduce the overall demand for agricultural land and resources.
5. Food Waste Reduction: A substantial amount of food produced in the U.S. is wasted.⁹ Reducing food waste through improved supply chains, consumer education, and policy changes could free up significant amounts of food that would otherwise require more land to produce.¹⁰
6. Protected Farmland: Efforts by organizations like American Farmland Trust and state-level initiatives have permanently protected millions of acres of farmland from development.¹¹
7. Automation and Efficiency: The number of farms and farmers is declining, but the average farm size is increasing, and operations are becoming more automated and efficient.

Will the U.S. be unable to feed itself by 2100?

It’s unlikely the U.S. will be unable to feed itself in an absolute sense by 2100, meaning there won’t be widespread famine due to a lack of overall food production capacity. The U.S. is a major food exporter, producing more than enough to feed its population.

However, the continued loss of prime farmland, combined with the escalating impacts of climate change, will likely make it much harder and more expensive to maintain current levels of food production and exports.

The more accurate concerns are:

• Increased Food Prices: Producing food on less productive land or under more challenging climate conditions will likely drive up costs.
• Decreased Export Capacity: The U.S. might become less of a “breadbasket to the world” if its internal food production is strained.
• Regional Food Insecurity: While the nation as a whole might have enough food, certain regions or vulnerable populations could face increased food insecurity due to local production shortfalls, distribution issues, or affordability problems.
• Environmental Degradation: The pressure to intensify production on remaining land could lead to further environmental degradation (soil erosion, water pollution).¹²

In conclusion, while the U.S. likely won’t face outright inability to feed its population, the quality, cost, and sustainability of its food system will be under severe stress if current trends of farmland loss and unchecked climate change continue. Proactive measures in land conservation, climate adaptation, sustainable farming practices, and consumption pattern shifts will be crucial to securing long-term food security.

It’s highly probable that the “sandwich generation” will become an even more prominent and perhaps defining demographic challenge for a significant portion of Americans by 2100.

Here’s why:

1. Aging Population:
   • Increased Longevity: People are living longer, healthier lives on average. While this is a positive development, it means more people will live into their 80s, 90s, and even 100s, often requiring various forms of care (medical, personal, financial) in their later years. The number of Americans aged 65 and older is projected to nearly double by 2060, and the over-80 population is expected to nearly triple in the next 25 years.
   • Lower Birth Rates: U.S. birth rates have been declining and are projected to continue doing so throughout the 21st century. This means that future generations will have fewer siblings to share caregiving responsibilities for aging parents.
   • Ratio Shift: By 2034, the share of Americans over age 65 is projected to exceed the under-18 population. By 2100, nearly three in 10 Americans will be 65 or older, compared to just 16.4% under 18. This demographic shift significantly increases the old-age dependency ratio.
2. Delayed Parenthood:
   • Many Americans are delaying marriage and childbirth, having children later in life. This increases the likelihood that they will still have dependent children (or young adult children requiring financial support) at the same time their parents begin needing significant care. The mean age for giving birth was 27.4 years old in 2022, a record high.
3. Economic Pressures:
   • Cost of Living: The cost of raising children and supporting adult children (e.g., college, housing) is high.
   • Cost of Elder Care: Long-term care for the elderly (nursing homes, assisted living, in-home care) is extremely expensive, and most health insurance does not cover it. This often falls to family caregivers, leading to significant financial strain.
   • Stagnant Wages: For many, wage growth has not kept pace with the rising costs of living and care.
4. Workforce Implications:
   • A growing “sandwich generation” workforce will face immense pressure to balance work responsibilities with caregiving duties. This can lead to increased stress, burnout, reduced productivity, and career stagnation, particularly for women who disproportionately shoulder caregiving roles. Employers are already starting to feel the impact and are largely unprepared.

What might “sandwich nation” look like by 2100?

• Higher Prevalence: A larger proportion of middle-aged adults will find themselves in this dual-caregiving role.
• Increased Strain: The financial, emotional, and time burdens will intensify due to the sheer numbers of older adults requiring care and fewer younger adults to provide it.
• Greater Need for Support Systems: There will be an even more urgent need for:
  • Affordable and accessible elder care options.
  • Government policies supporting caregivers (e.g., paid family leave, tax credits).
  • Workplace flexibility and benefits for caregivers.
  • Technological solutions for remote monitoring and assistance for the elderly.
• Changing Family Dynamics: Family structures will continue to evolve, with fewer relatives available for support in some cases, and a greater reliance on formal care or intergenerational living arrangements.

While the exact percentage of Americans in the sandwich generation might fluctuate based on definitions, the underlying demographic trends strongly suggest that the challenges associated with simultaneously caring for aging parents and dependent children will become a much more pervasive and significant societal issue in the U.S. by 2100.