Warning about dire effects of climate change on armed conflict is a recent variation of a scenario that has been promoted by environmental pessimists for over two centuries. The essence is that human activities lead to resource scarcities that in turn will generate famine, pestilence, and war. This essay reviews three stages of the argument: first, the original Malthusian thesis that focused on food production. Second, the broader neoMalthusian concern from the 1970s about limits to growth and developing scarcities in a range of necessities. And recently, the specter of climate change. In each phase, the Malthusians have met firm opposition from environmental optimists, who argue that emerging scarcities can be countered by human ingenuity, technological progress, and national and international economic and political institutions and that environmental change is not in itself a major driver of human violence. In the third phase, the Malthusian case appears to be stronger because human activities have reached a level where they have a truly global impact. Environmental optimists still insist that these problems can be overcome by human ingenuity and that the long-term trend towards less violence in human affairs is unlikely to be reversed by climate change. The stakes seem higher, but the structure of the debate remains largely the same.

关于气候变化对武装冲突的可怕影响的警告是环境悲观主义者在两个多世纪以来提倡的一种新的情景。本质是人类活动导致资源稀缺，进而造成饥荒，瘟疫和战争。本文回顾了该论证的三个阶段：首先，最初的马尔萨斯主义论文侧重于粮食生产。其次，从1970年代开始，新马尔萨斯人广泛关注在一系列必需品中对增长和稀缺性的限制。最近，出现了气候变化的阴影。在每个阶段，马尔萨斯人都遭到了环境乐观主义者的坚决反对，他们认为人类的独创性，技术进步，以及国家和国际经济与政治机构，环境变化本身并不是造成人类暴力的主要动力。在第三阶段，马尔萨斯事件似乎更为牢固，因为人类活动已经达到了真正具有全球影响力的水平。环境乐观主义者仍然坚持认为，人类的聪明才智可以解决这些问题，而且人类的暴力行为减少的长期趋势不太可能被气候变化所逆转。赌注似乎更高，但是辩论的结构基本上保持不变。环境乐观主义者仍然坚持认为，人类的聪明才智可以解决这些问题，而且人类的暴力行为减少的长期趋势不太可能被气候变化所逆转。赌注似乎更高，但是辩论的结构基本上保持不变。环境乐观主义者仍然坚持认为，人类的聪明才智可以解决这些问题，而且人类的暴力行为减少的长期趋势不太可能被气候变化所逆转。赌注似乎更高，但是辩论的结构基本上保持不变。