3 ms·
A phrase like "not strictly speaking" gives the impression that you would be qualified to elaborate on that point. Don't hold back.
by pohl 16y ago
A phrase like "not strictly speaking" gives the impression that you would be qualified to elaborate on that point. Don't hold back.
- hugh3 16y agoI would assume that it would basically wipe out most of the life in the sea. But of course, we don't need fish to live. I'd rather keep 'em though, personally.
- d0mine 16y agoNo plankton means no oxygen planet-wise (forests provide zero or negative oxygen yield) as far as I know.
- iwwr 16y agoKilling oxygen-breathing life in the ocean, with nothing to replace it, would increase the proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere, to the detriment of CO2 and methane. This would have potential implications for the climate at large (a faster and longer ice-age than usual). But it would be a slow enough process that the human race could survive (if nothing can be done about the mirror life itself). On the shorter term, the damage to sea-borne life would impact humanity's food supplies, by how much is not clear because land-based agriculture can be ramped up. I am certainly not qualified to speak as an expert, but neither are most people here.