Quote Originally Posted by mcatdog

Yes, but if your main goal is the well-being of mankind (not the level of atmospheric CO2) that isn't a bad thing. Also if people are more affluent they'll be better able to adapt to global warming, as opposed to the poor people in coastal regions like Bangladesh who will simply die in huge numbers if they stay poor and sea levels rise.
The hypothetical adaptation to AGW is unrealistic since, well, it's not like everybody's going to all of sudden change their ways and turn the poor majority into middle class. Adaptation to AGW can only happen so much, and this adaptation will only happen for the wealthy. Part of this is because the poles warm dramatically more quickly than the equator.

Also, I don't really understand the issue of arable land, but everywhere I look, climatologists are saying that AGW will cause drought and famine catastrophe, no matter how we cut it. One of the problems with the notion that arable land will just shift from one region to another is that the planet is not a series of isolated systems, but one gigantic network. What we will see from AGW is things like rivers drying up yet not being replaced elsewhere. This type of thing will kill arability.

But even if it was just about shifting arable regions, that wouldn't happen overnight, humans will not be 100% on the ball, and billions will suffer because of it

And I don't understand the distinction between focusing on modernization vs focus on AGW eradication, and the former being the humanitarian option. Modernization only makes AGW faster and ultimately more severe, and AGW is speculated to be responsible for the misery of billions in the future