• empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    130
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Bacteria multiply crazy fast… as long as the food source was uninterrupted I’d almost guarantee you most people’s microbiome would be fully recovered in just a few hours and they’d not even notice.

    • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      96
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah 50% loss isn’t servere at all for gut biome loss. If you’ve ever been on antibiotics you’ve likely experienced that or worse.

    • Drinvictus@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      Our doubling time isn’t that bad either. We reached 4 billion in 1970s. If we round up the current population to 8 billion that’s about 50 years. That’s all that thanos would add by the snap. Even less probably because we have better medicine now so it would be easier to reach that number.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        I kind of expect developed countries would maintain the current trend of being slightly below replacement value. Probably depends on the psychological impact of the snap. People tend to have fewer children when they know the ones they have are safe.

        But your point is a good one either way.

    • DeepFriedDresden@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      How long can gut microbiomes survive after the host is dead? Wouldn’t a dead host essentially mean near 100% fatality for the gut microbiome meaning that anybody killed by a Thanos snap would also mean a 100% kill rate of their gut bacteria, leaving any survivors to basically keep all 100% of their gut bacteria?

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Well the implication in-universe is that the actual snap was killing 50% of all life, not any death afterwards. If we’re counting bacterial life as individual living beings in this 50%, then it shouldn’t matter whether the host itself got snapped or not, since the bacteria are “separate” and would be left behind after a snap…

        • Tremble@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          Does this mean that for every human that disappeared there should have been massive piles of bacteria and shit left where they were last standing

          • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            Even better, your microbiome covers your entire body (anything exposed to air) and into any organs that are part of the waste processing system.

            So briefly after the snap you would see a vague outline of the creature, with a well defined digestive tract (mouth to anus), eyes, nose, ears, sinus system, and bladder. Because bacteria, viruses, and fungi are all quite small, the cluster of gut organisms would probably fall, and the rest would drift away. Imagine being in a crowded space and just breathing in all those bacteria, viruses, and fungi… 🤮 I bet a lot of people would die from infections.

            If the creature had any parasitic infections, like a tapeworm, that could also be left behind.

        • DeepFriedDresden@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Right so then couldn’t it follow that human survivors may have no impact on their gut bacteria? If there are only two people and their microbiomes, and the snap kills 1 person and their entire microbiome, then the surviving person would have no or microscopically small impact on their bacteria assuming an even distribution of bacteria across the two people. Basically the OOP is assuming that of the people that died, half of their bacteria would survive, impacting survivors’ microbiomes, rather than assuming 100% of bacteria would die with their hosts, leaving the surviving population’s bacteria intact.

    • kandoh@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It wasn’t an even 50% from everyone though. Some people had no loss of gut bacteria, other people had 75 - 100% snapped away

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s not how statistics works. Every person will lose almost exactly 50%.

        Estimates for the number of bacterial cells within the average 70kg Human male is around 38 trillion

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiome

        Do you know what the chance of 100% of them being snapped is?

        0.50 ^ (38 trillion) = 0.0000000000000…

        The calculator ran out of zeros.

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          It depends on how the snap worked. It was 50% of all life in the universe. Was that 50% of every species? Or just 50% of all living things? If it’s the latter it’s possible some species were missed entirely while others were completely wiped out.

          • Wogi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            If it’s alive it had a 50/50 shot.

            But no one lost 50% of their own cells, so clearly if it’s alive and can be classified as a single organism. Is the gut micro biome an independent body of organisms, or is it just like any other organ of the human body, and thus would have been unaffected by the snap?

            Either everyone lost almost exactly 50% of their gut biome, or, about half of all living organisms lost 100% of it, or, no one lost any part of it. Those are the only three possibilities.

            The more interesting question is were viruses affected? Or did the magic stones not consider them life?

        • kandoh@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s random and it effected the entire universe. Can your calculator tell you how big the universe is?

  • Vespair@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Snapping half the life forms also snaps half of the world’s gut bacteria. If we removed half of the gut bacteria from those who weren’t snapped, that would be removing 75% of the universe’s gut bacteria, not 50%.

    • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      69
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not if 50% of the gut bacteria of the people who got snapped just like fell to the ground, or got stuck to that dusty shit.

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        65
        ·
        11 months ago

        Why assume that though? The Infinity Gauntlet isn’t a Monkey’s Paw, it reads beyond the words and answers the intent of the wielder. So much so, in fact, that it even includes subconscious thoughts and feelings as part of its interpretation. I see often these ideas predicated on the Gauntlet working on Monkey Paw logic despite that being clearly and specifically not how it operates within canon.

        • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yeah, we gotta remember the gauntlet includes the mind stone and the soul stone. Things smarter than just simply granting wishes, as you said.

        • samus12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Yeah, the Gauntlet wouldn’t leave anything that can’t survive on its own, like gut bacteria, nor remove anything that’s needed for the proper functioning of another lifeform. It’s why there weren’t any fetuses falling to the ground after the pregnant women vanished.

          I would assume that conjoined twins would be a both-or-neither situation, since removing one would leave a gaping wound in the other even if they could have survived independently with surgery,

            • samus12345@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              11 months ago

              It kinda sidesteps the whole thing, since the standard is life that is dependent on other life to survive is not counted separately. Like the conjoined twins thing I mentioned.

                • samus12345@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Just like with someone who is pro-death penalty, Thanos cannot claim to be pro-life when he murdered half of the universe.

          • constnt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            26
            ·
            11 months ago

            50% of what Thanos considers life since it was powered by his will. Since he seemed to imply that nature (plants and animals) where not part of this it’s safe to assume it was sapient life only.

            • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              ·
              11 months ago

              Except animals definitely were - remember endgame, Barton went into the office looked out the window to a small garden and found birds had appeared. Very indicative that the snap included animals

              • SeekPie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                That’s just government propaganda to make you think that birds are real and not drones.

            • samus12345@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              He was worried about limited resources, so I would assume that non-sapient fauna would be included.

            • groupofcrows@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Do we know if Thanos believed in life at conception or birth? Does someone with a donated organ count as one life, two or zero since they wouldn’t be alive without the organ. If I only ate one foot, or how about one toe, does that make me a cannibal?

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      But it’s not random. Not fair. Not balanced. Entire civilizations of gut bacteria wiped out! To them it was like he wiped out entire planets instead of life forms!

      • Gladaed@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        If you wipe out the people you wipe out the biome. You just want more than 50% killed.

        • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I mean Thanos stick was that it was random and dispassionate, and thus morally not biased towards specific values or ideals. Well except for the individual gut bacteria.

  • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    11 months ago

    That’s assuming that half of the gut biomes of all humans was just left floating around. No, it’s more likely that the biomes were snapped out of existence with their hosts.

    • saigot@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      well when you get snapped all that’s left is dust. perhaps that dust is all the microbes in your body that survive the snap. It clearly takes up far less space that if it just disintegrated you.

  • XEAL@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    If we’re playing by those rules, then only 50% of every human would die, because we’re made of smaller living organisms

    • psmgx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah rapid growth. Maybe a day or two of gut trouble but back to normal pretty quick as long as your diet hasn’t changed too much.

      And that’s possible cuz half of all livestock just vanished, so now you’re paying 85 bucks for a steak.

        • joel_feila@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          if only free markets worked that way. Countries that make lots of would panic and try to horde what is left. You also have half the worker to raise the animals, crops, and everything else we need. Half the number of driver does not mean we need half the roads

  • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I think the real problem would be ecosystem collapse.

    Ecosystems evolve as complex, interdependent systems with nonlinearities. What happens when you kill off 50% of pollinators in a single instant? 50% of plankton? 50% of grasses? The problem with nonlinear systems is that killing off half of A and half of B won’t have a linear effect if the relationship depends on having minimum levels of A. Assume it’s a random function such that we kill off half of all plants and on top of that half of all rhizobium bacteria which fix nitrogen for many plant species. Now we’re killing off potentially all plants that depend on having a stable population of rhizobium bacteria, which will have a cascading effect throughout the already devastated ecosystem. It’s all about tipping points and sigmoid curves and such.

    The truth is that it was a completely stupid idea, and it was what finally broke my love of the marvel franchise. Either you have runaway ecosystem collapses, or the populations will simply return back to their original levels to hit their ecological carrying capacities again. Kill off half of termites, and you’ll probably be back to the same level of termites in a decade or less. Even with people (using the word inclusively across all technological species), you’d have a population surge that within less than a century or so would be brought back to carrying capacities. Populations self-regulate via interaction with their ecosystems. You’re either going to end up with 100% extinctions or system recovery to current levels within a very brief period via normal reproduction and evolutionary dynamics.

    It was a massive effort undertaken by an immortal and massively intelligent person that is inherently flawed because the marvel writers apparently never took Biology 101-102. I’m not saying it was GoT season 8 levels of bad, but after watching those last couple of movies I not only never rewatched them, but I checked out of the mcu pretty much entirely after having rewatched the previous movies multiple times each.

    • somePotato@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The movies did a great job at presenting thanos as an extremist that sincerely wants the greater good by questionable means, but it falls apart because his grand plan is just so stupid. The only way to reconcile the sympathetic character with the dumb plan is to point out he’s “THANOS THE MAD TITAN”, not “THANOS THE TITAN THAT FULLY CONSIDERS THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS”

      Would have been much better if they just kept his original motivation from the comics: Death is a hot lady and horny thanos does the snap as a gift to her

      • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        My problem isn’t that he’s a Mad Titan, but that the plot makes Ready Player One look like Les Miserables. It’s basically a concept script you’d expect to see coming out from the writer pool from 30 Rock where Tracy Jordan has a six armed alien outfit.

        We all know GoT died the death it did because they had absolutely no idea how to wrap it up and just wanted to be done with it. The mcu money should have been more than enough to do a proper job with transitioning the storyline, but they felt the need to do something blockbusting with it. I would rather have had a Watchmen style conclusion where some people move into retirement homes while the next generation comes forward, but their need to go over the top just turned it into a ludicrous script.

        I really don’t care that much. I was getting a bit tired of the franchise anyway (although the new GotG was pretty great), but it always kind of sucks when you can tell that the creatives involved just don’t care anymore. Contrast that with something like the final episode of MASH.

    • Agent641@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      What if there was an endangered animal with only one surviving individual? Does Thanos snap half of the animal?

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Could have been a monkey paw situation. “Half of all life disappeared, you say?” every living thing suddenly missing their left half “Done!”