• Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Well no, That would be 75% if the other 50% already existed within the organisms he killed.

    • kraftpudding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      I have a math problem for you.

      10x0,5 + 20x0,5 + 40x0,5 = 5+10+20= 35

      (10+20+40)x0,5 = 70x0,5 = 35

      You see where this is going?

    • lousyd@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Seems like if you killed half of a bacteria that would kill the whole thing, wouldn’t it? You can’t just chop a bacteria in half. I don’t think…

      • InputZero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        It depends on the bacteria, when in it’s lifecycle half of it is killed, and what half is killed. To keep things short, the odds are in the bacteria’s favor. Suppose if half the bacteria in your gut died right now how long do you think it would take for the bacteria population in your gut to return to pre-snap levels? A month? A year? Decades? How about less than an hour. Bacteria reproduce exponentially and on average, a bacterial generation lasts 20 minutes. Meaning that every 20 minutes the population doubles, assuming there are no deaths in the population during this time. If there is space for bacteria to grow, they will.

  • Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Thanos’ plan was unmitigated garbage anyway.

    Humanity reached 4M in 1975 and hit 8M in 2022. On that basis, if half of humanity died when Thanos snapped his fingers 50 years later we’d be back to 8M people again.

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      That is NOT how species replicate. There are many factors where that number comes from. Including food and space to keep them. I read in college the max for humans is something like 10 million. But most scientists think it’s a already slowing down due to the struggles everyone deals with.

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        You mean 10 billion?

        Large cities can have more than 10 million people, so I assume you mean the other thing.

        Bluntly, half of the occupants of residences would be gone, and their stuff would be up for grabs. It would take a few years to stabilize afterwards, but it would mostly be business as usual for those who survived the snap (apart from the obvious mental trauma).

        Enough homes exist for the number of people who live here now, whether those homes are condos, apartments, detached homes, townhouses, or otherwise. A lot of people would be able to move somewhere more permanent, because the housing market would crash pretty hard.

        As we refill the homes the population would naturally return to the same level of growth we have seen previously… So after a few years, maybe a decade, max, humanity would be back on the population train straight to 8B again for sometime between 2050 and 2075.

        Humans don’t really follow the same population rules as apply to animals, bacteria, or other organisms in general.

        • GladiusB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          I meant 10 billion yes. And this study was specifically for humans. Saying we aren’t animals and we don’t live by nature’s rules just simply isn’t factual. We do things a lot differently but no matter what we still have instincts and those instincts drive us. We can’t just take out the hardwiring.

          • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            We can’t take it out, but we can over rule it with reason and logic. We can decide to do something that’s not our “natural” choice.

            I know plenty of childfree couples, yet our biological drive is to create children to perpetuate our genes in the species.

            There’s a lot of exceptions to the natural human drives that most people experience.

            • GladiusB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 days ago

              That is just one example. There are many natural drives that we still use. We eat. We breathe air. We drink water. There are plenty of natural drives that we cannot overcome. We are animals and all animals have things that affect their decisions.

        • GladiusB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          That is not the only factor. But yes it would increase food capacity. But species are very aware of their drain on an eco system. We are starting to become more aware. But we know killing off one bug will effect harvests that effect everything including our food’s food.

    • Disgracefulone@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Are… you high? You know that back when I last checked in 2020ish there were 8 billion people, right? Maybe that’s what you meant

      Edit surely you had to have meant that. The US alone has almost half a billion people. Most countries have well over that number so I’m attributing it to mistype

      • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        That’s obviously what they meant. There was probably some translation error. Just cut people some slack, everyone makes small mistakes from time to time. There’s a few (atleast 2) languages where the native word for billion starts with an m and the word for trillion starts with a b.

        • Disgracefulone@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Yeah that’s why I added my edit.

          I shouldn’t have led with the “are you high” either. Yesterday was a bad day for me. My apologies to the commenter.

      • f314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        They might not be a native English speaker. In my language (Norwegian), the word for “billion” is “milliard”. I think that’s also the case in German.

  • twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Wouldn’t 50% of them die at the same time as the creatures that they live inside? Like unexisting 50% of humans would in fact unexist 50% of the bacteria in the humans who went poof.

    How does this argument make sense?

    • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      If it’s all a truly random selection, which I believe it was, then half of all people would cease to exist, leaving half of their gut biomes behind, still alive (albeit briefly). I guess the end result would be the snapped people leaving behind a mist of gross intestinal bacteria which would itself mostly die out without a host. Meaning much more than half of all gut biome bacteria would be killed as a result.

      Of course it would make more sense to consider a person and their gut flora as one being, but the joke is about how stupid the initial conception of Thanos’ plan is, not creating an academically rigorous argument.

      • teddy2021@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        This brings up an interesting point. The snap would have to run a multi pass check to make sure that by killing half of all organic life, it’s not causing the other half to die off. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be confirming to the will of the user, but then does it “scan” individual life types independently or as an ecosystem unto themselves, in which case is there precedence? Do food producing things get a pass, because otherwise the snap is just shortcut the process for half of the population. If it does leave the food producing ones alone, then really he’s just snapping away apex predators.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Each bacteria is an individual living organism. So I’m guessing that (within this framework) the humans disappeared, but only ~50% (it would average out to 50% across the entire population) of their gut biome (or I guess any other living organism within them) disappeared.

      And as such, in people who did not disappear, ~50% (on avg) of their gut biome also disappeared.

      The math checks out…

      • Dnb@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        So you are saying for the 50%who disappeared, 50% of their gut bacteria fell out (and died)

    • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      No, viruses don’t mean the scientific definition of life. IIRC, the primary reason why is because, in order to make copies of itself, it must hijack a living cell’s reproductive system to do so. It can’t simply divide to make more of itself.

  • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    E. Coli reproduces so fast that a population can double in size in half an hour, and human feces is 50% bacteria by weight.

    If your gut microbiome got snapped it’d be back so fast you wouldn’t even notice. Bacteria are kinda scary.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Come to think about it, whenever a macroscopic organism - ie animals - died it would leave behind about half the microbes living on and in them. When those poor fools got dusted it should have left a puddle of horrible slime on the ground.

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Does that mean for the people that got snapped, some will leave some of their sperm behind?

    And pregnant woman might leave their fetus behind.

      • AndrewZabar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        There was never any such ideas being part of it. It affected plantlife and bacteria as well. The idea of a soul to begin with is not even supported by science, although most people consider it to have some kind of validity, even if it’s not quite definable. But the relevant issue is that it’s all life period.

        • piecat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          Macroscopic creatures are made of different types of cells and stuff… what constitutes a living thing?

          People didn’t lose half of their cells, it was all or none.

  • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Thanos’ snap wouldn’t kill 50% of each survivors’ gut microbiome, it would kill 50% of all the lil buggies that compromise all gut microbiomes, and if the snap effects individuals randomly, you’d see a normal distribution (I think, I haven’t taken stats in a decade). So some survivors would retain 100% of their microbiome, some would lose it all, with a bell curve in between, probably with the peak around 50%.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      That bell curve would be extremely narrow. You have so many lil buggies that basically every human survivor would lose ~50% buggies.

  • CoolMatt@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    As someome who is fucking stupid, what ghe hell is a gut biome and why would 50% of the world population disappearing affect it at all? And why would people be power blasting their bathrooms with diarrhea

    • davidagain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Your gut is full of friendly bacteria that help you digest your food and keep everything running smoothly and efficiency. This vast community of bacteria is called a gut microbiome. People with gut problems like inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome tend to have a much less diverse gut micribiome. Taking a broad spectrum antibiotic can devastate your gut microbiome, letting the bad bacteria thrive while the good ones are offstage, sometimes leading to some of the same symptoms that people with IBD and IBS might encounter, and it can take months to recover.

      Killing 50% of all living things might include 50% of gut microbia, resulting in the potential for bloating, gassiness, stomach cramps, and potentially diarrhoea.

        • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          I was kidding around, it’s a silly leap, and the post is silly, so I was just suggesting something silly myself. Someone else seems to have done the legwork though.

  • don@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Or the 50% of all people that got snapped took 50% of the gut bacteria with them, leaving the rest with no loss to their gut biomes. (taps forehead)