[solarmist]

Possibly, but even if 90% or even 99% of humanity dies it still isn't an existential threat.

If 100k humans survive that's more than enough to carry on humans and civilization as a whole.

[soulofmischief]

This take always rubs me the wrong way because it conveniently ignores the fact that letting 90% of humanity die is wrong and should be avoided given that 1% of humanity is more or less to blame for this mess.

[cercatrova]

If one is going to use a word that means a specific thing then get annoyed because that word didn't conform to what they wanted it to mean, I mean, can we do anything about it? They should have used a different word. Calamitous or monumental are good words for what you're describing.

[RhodesianHunter]

The word fits. Our existence as we know it is at risk.

Our existence for the majority of us is at risk.

Our existence as a nation is at risk.

I didn't say "and existential threat for the human race". Even if I had, the pedantry is unwarranted.

[thunky]

Nobody said it was ok, they just said it's technically not an existential threat if humanity persists.

[AnimalMuppet]

Letting 90% of humanity die is wrong and should be avoided, whether or not 1% of humanity is to blame.