I actually fact checked this and it’s true.

  • samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    True, it would be difficult to completely turn Earth into a lifeless rock, but I think humans are up to the task.

    • 🇰 🔵 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      There are plenty of things we can’t kill and, in fact, live on things we might use to kill them. Extremophiles that live in environments nothing else can. Bacteria that live off gamma radiation. We would have to dedicate ourselves to ridding all life on purpose to kill everything. We would have to live long enough to be the last things to kill if that was the goal.

    • HenryWong327@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Eh I doubt it. Every single nuke ever built combined still doesn’t come close to the power of the Chicxulub asteroid (the one that killed the dinosaurs) and even that impact didn’t come close to eliminating all life on Earth. Unless someone accidentally compresses a mountain into an artifical black hole or something there probably is no way to wipe out all life on Earth.

      • Tvkan@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Mars was once habitable but lost it’s magnetic field, wiping it’s atmosphere. Venus was once habitable but taken over by a runaway greenhouse effect.

        I’m not saying they ever had life or that we’re going to suffer the same fate, but it’s definitely possible to wipe a planet clean.

        • HenryWong327@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months 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.