5 ms·
Possibly, but even if 90% or even 99% of humanity dies it still isn't an existential threat. If 100k humans survive that's more than enough to carry on humans
by solarmist 4y ago
Possibly, but even if 90% or even 99% of humanity dies it still isn't an existential threat.
If 100k humans survive that's more than enough to carry on humans and civilization as a whole.
- soulofmischief 4y agoThis take always rubs me the wrong way because it conveniently ignores the fact that letting 90% of humanity die is wrong and should be avoided given that 1% of humanity is more or less to blame for this mess.
- thunky 4y agoNobody said it was ok, they just said it's technically not an existential threat if humanity persists.
- cercatrova 4y agoIf one is going to use a word that means a specific thing then get annoyed because that word didn't conform to what they wanted it to mean, I mean, can we do anything about it? They should have used a different word. Calamitous or monumental are good words for what you're describing.
- RhodesianHunter 4y agoThe word fits. Our existence as we know it is at risk. Our existence for the majority of us is at risk. Our existence as a nation is at risk. I didn't say "and existential threat for the human race". Even if I had, the pedantry is unwarranted.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoLetting 90% of humanity die is wrong and should be avoided, whether or not 1% of humanity is to blame.