[soheil]

Adaptability does not mean 100% survivability. If a billion people survive what do you call that? Extinction level event that did not extinct? Instead of saying humans are not adaptable you probably are trying to say be scared you tiny creatures you could die any moment, which is true but you’re not saying anything other than what religions have been stuffing into people’s heads for thousands of years, so I get worried. I don’t like to argue this point with you as I see you’re just repeating yourself and not seriously engaging with the points I raised.

[lotsofpulp]

I interpreted friseurtermin's usage of the word "adapt" to mean living in a future with similar or few sacrifices to the modern standards of living. I think when most people express worry about adapting to changes in the environment, they do not mean 1B out of 7B surviving, they mean large portions of the population losing access to clean water, hospitable temperatures, quality and easy access to food, etc.

For example, we can adapt to volatility in rain by developing irrigation, or volatility in soil quality by using synthetic fertilizer. But you cannot adapt to zero water, or extreme weather, or poor air quality, at least not without war, which also creates its own problems.

And yes, some will survive and "adapt" in that sense, but the notable difference is "adapting" in the recent past meant innovations that did not necessarily take away from others (at least in the short term). In the future, it would be more zero sum, and hence uglier.