Everyone knows "destroy the planet" means something like "decrease Earth's ability to sustain life, especially human society" as is clear from every context it's used. Of course there are edge cases, which amount to rounding errors.
Yes, people would communicate more effectively by speaking more precisely, but this post doesn't merit meaningful discussion.
..excuse my not knowing where better to ask:
when i see a submission as what i would classify as "clickbait"-ish at hackernews, what is the right thing to do? is that what flagging is for?
a cursory search hasn't returned me a FAQ or anything & i'm relatively new to commenting. thank y'all in advance if there's such a document available to link to.
> Majority of Britons believe climate-change could end human race. ... 54 percent of adults agreed that climate-change threatens our extinction as a species
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-protests-climate-c...
Yes, there are plenty of scenarios where a small amount of humanity lives on and repopulates the world over time. It certainly can happen. But there's also plenty where we don't. The author doesn't bring up any accurate science to back up his claims, or make any real arguments beyond 'We've survived population bottlenecks in the past', so I'd say that 54% of Briton's are right - climate change is a threat that could cause extinction. It isn't guaranteed to, even unchecked... but the question isn't whether or not it's a guarantee of extinction for humanity, or a threat possible of causing it. And it certainly is.
That would mean it is a metaphor since this wouldn't end the human race.
Both are vastly less than the .1% you claim to be fatal. What is your basis for claiming this number would end the human species ?