723

submitted 1 year ago by Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to c/196

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I actually fact checked this and it's true.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] HenryWong327@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

75% of all species, not all life. Larger species and photosynthesizers were more heavily affected, while smaller species, scavengers, and deep sea life were less affected.

And I'm not a biologist, but I'm pretty sure even 75% of all life, not species, still wouldn't be close to completely ending life on Earth, cause in the end as long as some microbes survived around a hydrothermal vent somewhere total extinction would be avoided.

[-] rojun@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I still think that "lifeless rock" does not specify how lifeless - theoretically extinct or just lifeless enough to make human life either extinct or just miserable. I took it as the latter, and in that case even lesser cases than 75% of all species would suffice.

The first case, the theoretical and non-human focused pov is quite another thing. Like you said, there's so many opportunities and adaptations for life to seap through the combs of doom :)

[-] HenryWong327@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Going a couple comments up the chain:

Even if humans manage to kill off most life on Earth it will continue to exist, propagate, and become more complex. Again we’re talking about billions of years. There have been huge shifts in climate and mass extinctions many times before and yet here we are.

So I took it to mean all life on Earth being dead. As long as one microbe survives to reproduce and start evolving it doesn't count.