[madnak]

I'll grant that misery in the present isn't necessarily bad for the future, but I think misery hurts productivity. The phenomenon you're talking about is a matter of motivation IMO - people don't get more creative during a war, they simply have greater motivation to produce - ie more money is being spent on R&D, etc. Fear and pain are powerful motivators in the personal sense, and so crises are powerful motivators in the collective sense, but I don't think fear is necessary, and if it is then I don't think it will be in the future. There are other ways to motivate people.

I also think that the disaster-oriented advances tend to come in jumps and starts that disbalance the overall level of human technology. Eventually we have to play "catch-up," and do the dreary work of infrastructure and implementation. I don't think there's a lack of insight or money today, more a lack of willingness to do the necessary work, so I don't think our situation is analagous to WW2/etc. Also, if we manage to avert the crisis then the implication is that we've developed technology to circumvent the issue - I could see a crisis motivating us to develop our tech to that level, but since we've already done so in the alternative case, it's hard for me to see any advantage to a disastrous event.

The best answer for the future is, IMO, to deal with climate change now and prevent it from becoming a big problem (though I believe technological measures are the only viable option - social measures won't get us far).