5 ms·
Not really for humanity directly. We'd survive. But the plants and animals we depend on probably wouldn't have a very good time, and our biodiversity as a plane
by mike10010100 10y ago
Not really for humanity directly. We'd survive. But the plants and animals we depend on probably wouldn't have a very good time, and our biodiversity as a planet would significantly decrease.
Not quite extinction level, perhaps another Great Dying, though.
- rybosome 10y ago> Not really for humanity directly...perhaps another Great Dying, though. It seems hard to believe that such a drastic shock to our planet won't trigger panic and resource wars which have the potential to finish us off.
- crpatino 10y agoA great decrease in population, yes. That is different from extintion.
- mike10010100 10y agoFinish us off? I doubt it. We're a tenuous species.
- stouset 10y ago> We'd survive. But the plants and animals we depend on probably wouldn't have a very good time... I'm not sure how you can reconcile these two adjacent statements. Yes, some humans would undoubtedly exist somewhere. But only a tiny fraction of our current world population.
- mike10010100 10y ago> Yes, some humans would undoubtedly exist somewhere. That's called survival.
- stouset 10y agoOh come on, you're just splitting hairs at this point. Pockets of a few thousand people is, yes, technically survival. Congratulations, you're "technically correct" — the most useless, pedantically, and antisocial kind of correct. The original question was "how is 8˚C "not much worse" than 4˚C? Surely you can concede that "tens of thousands of humans" and "zero humans" are not so much different compared to today's "billions of humans".