Interesting that even at a ridiculous, unprecedented 500m sea level rise, there are still substantial areas of dry land. It would be a radically different world, and a smaller one for us land based animals, but it doesn’t seem outlandish that civilization could persist.
The highest point in the Netherlands is 322 meters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaalserberg), so even the mighty Dutch might have a problem with a 500m rise in sea level.
Not only that, but also the massive loss of land that is currently dense urban area, and the massive loss of land in general. There will have to be huge reconfigurations of where people live and what people's livelihoods are. I am not optimistic that such changes can be managed among several billion humans without war, famine, etc.
Dry land is just one aspect of climatic stability. Tolerable and predictable weather patterns is another. Fertile regions, a critical consequence of that. The question isn't whether some will survive, the question is: Who, why them, and at what cost? Furthermore, it's best to avoid population bottleneck scenarios in general, isn't it?
So, sure; we can relax at least our fears for a Kevin Costner "waterworld."
Maybe "stability" isn't the best factor for human progress? I'm not saying "therefore, let's maximize chaos!" -- just pointing out that /stability/ in today's world is more likely to lead to "business as usual."
I know Hollywood movies like to focus on dystopian scenarios wherein the Onepercenters always end up the sole benefactors of significant changes (especially due to worsening climate/pollution)...but is that really so? I envision that they in particular would want stability -- especially political -- far more than the average person. The reason why especially such persons historically preferred western nations, for example, was precisely due to greater stability, and not because of tax laws, for example.
Perhaps it was "stability" that contributed to scientific stagnation in some cultures?
Lastly, another term for "stability" is steady state. Remember what cell bio teaches regarding steady state vs equilibrium.
If you're suggesting that what human civilization needs, in order to elevate us to a more global maximum (by your favorite rubric, whatsoever), is climate catastrophe, I think you could serve yourself well by looking into generational trauma and PTSD.
It's the culling of vulnerable populations that will limit our biodiversity and development towards ultimate catastrophe resilience. We've seen enough homogenization of architecture and institutions already to seriously endanger our tenure on the planet.
It's strange to me that you view "western nations" as possessing "greater stability" than the Persian, Indian, Chinese, and Ottoman empires and, likewise, strange that you think "the Onepercenters" "historically preferred" strong, stable social structures and not, specifically, a differential between their holdings and a marginal region to exploit.
Some people like to romanticize the opportunities available for underdogs in times of crisis but, for example, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is an easy counter-example. Vulnerability isn't strength. A "rising tide" doesn't lift all boats.
Ours is a hugely abstract and almost criminally vague level of discourse, however. I can't think of any meaningful consensus at which you and I might arrive. I just hope you can grow to recognize that survival of the fittest has no foresight, and no memory. Too cheaply do we cull the only locally unfit. Leaving climate change to do its worst in the hopes that it might topple "business as usual" sounds like a great way to preserve the most ruthless actors.
And large changes would take at least decades or centuries. It seems outlandish that civilization wouldn't persist just because coastal settlements move their center of mass over time.
Not to mention 500 meters will likely take a thousand years or more. Where will society be a thousand years from now? Changing the climate might be as easy as using the terrain editor in Sim City.
