• FlowVoid
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The only realistic way to “lose” O2 is to convert it into CO2. And even if enough CO2 were produced to extinguish humanity forever, there would still be plenty of O2 left over. So “running out” of O2 is not a serious concern.

    • Uli@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, in the long term, the planet will be fine. But bear in mind, our entire biology is based on converting O2 into CO2.

      I mean, sure, a couple billion years ago, the global ecosystem had the opposite problem and single-celled archaea was suffocating the planet with too much O2. Those are the conditions that allowed animal life to evolve.

      So, I take your point that the planet will still have O2 long after we flood the atmosphere with the millions of tons of CO2 that used to be buried deep underground. Plankton will have a comeback even if the vast majority of animal life on the planet dies of asphyxiation first. But at that point, the argument of whether we’ve “run out” of O2 is really semantics, right? If we haven’t “run out” of it, but our supply gets low enough that virtually all of us are dead as a result, I don’t place a lot of value in making that distinction.

      • FlowVoid
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think you missed the point.

        Our atmosphere is 21% O2, and less than 0.05% CO2.

        If that changed by 1% to 20% O2 and 1.05% CO2, we would all die. But not for asphyxiation or lack of O2, because the slight reduction in O2 would be unnoticeable. The drastic increase in CO2, on the other hand, would be catastrophic.