• Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not really, the apocalypse scenario was averted by the banning of CFCs, which were a much worse greenhouse gas that were on track to cause a 4+ degree rise instead of the 2 we’re on track for now.

    Also, it was an apocalypse scenario because the damage it was doing to the natural atmosphere was liable to pair that temperature rise with everyone getting every kind of skin cancer imaginable from unfiltered solar radiation.

    Watch “The Human Future” by Melodysheep, it gives a real perspective moment on just how hard life would be to dislodge even in a major die out scenario.

    An event which wipes out 99% of all humans alive now would still leave the earth populated by 80 million people, which is a larger number than the total global population was for a massive stretch of our history.

    • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Glad to hear that you wouldn’t describe a 99% die off of the human population as apocalyptic, let alone all the life not able to adapt to rapid change. Whilst the remaining 1% sits in the wreckage of a blighted environment now incredibly hostile to life. Let’s hope the remaining 80 million are fairly centrally located and don’t just starve, freeze or kill each other in the wasteland, to round out that non-apocalypse.

      Don’t forget to have kids, Gen Z, we need more fodder for the impending mass death event.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tell me you drove your literature teacher into day drinking without telling me you drove your literature teacher into day drinking.

        Get off the internet and learn some reading comprehension skills angsty.