[mariusor]

And what do populations with a death sentence hanging over their heads usually do? Oh yeah, they take up arms and try to invade their better off neighbours.

Maybe that's a worst case scenario, but the better ones still include many millions of people displaced towards more temperate zones. It will lead to the greatest migration humanity ever suffered and I'm not sure that in a scenario of scant resources, that's going to go on in a peaceful and dignified manner.

[ACCount37]

The obvious counterpoint to any "hordes of climate refugees will destroy the first world countries" is that borders exist, and machine guns were invented over a century ago.

The reality of modern warfare doesn't favor large forces, poorly organized and underequipped, that are attacking reasonably well prepared defense positions.

Now, is there a will to use all the tools of modern warfare against climate refugees? Currently, no. But if "hordes of climate refugees will destroy the first world countries" stopped being a distant theoretical concern, and became a practical one? If there were real examples of border checkpoints in first world countries being breached by force, with border security overran, and thousands of somewhat armed and somewhat violent climate refugees pouring in through the breach? I expect that to change very quickly.

[mariusor]

Well, I wasn't try to imply that the refugees would win, and yes, that's entirely the point because the scenario qualifies as a breakdown of human civilization that Gates doesn't acknowledge. Even if some people will still be able to have their Sunday brunch while their country's borders are bathed in refugee blood.

[ACCount37]

Even WW2 wasn't a "breakdown of human civilization".

[mariusor]

I think that for most of Europe the 1939-1944 period was mostly living in the dark ages, but yes, you could still get tickets for the Rockettes at the Radio City if you were a middle class New Yorker.