[karlkeefer]

It seems like suggesting there is _no such threshold_ is even more in need of citation.

Boundlessness means that X could be all domesticated animals, and Y=1 human. Surely that seems like not the right call, given that it would ultimately kill even more humans.

[ShroudedNight]

There are definitely scenarios where an X big enough to cause broad ecological consequences would encounter little rhetorical friction to overwhelm Y=1.

[Admittedly this is all error-prone hazy recollection, but] From what I understood, the original scenario in question was about a case where X was large, but not of critical strategic consequence to the availability of the animal(s) in question