Is it really meaningful to talk about whether something is fine without considering life or utility for living things, though? Like, suppose the Earth was hit by a rogue planet and blown into a molten spray that eventually condensed into cosmic fragments. It’s not like it would mind its new physical form. Calling something a self-correcting problem supposes it could have a problem in the first place, but inanimate objects are indifferent.
As for bacteria, well, they’re not actually one monolithic entity. Some types will for sure be fine, but it’s not like they couldn’t lose biodiversity too, and in fact they definitely will…every macroscopic species that goes extinct is expected to carry some microscopic ones into oblivion along with it.
I get the idea that we need to stop this for the sake of humanity, but nature will keep going all the same. That works if you consider everything from a rainforest to a barren rock equivalent. I’m not sure why that’s a good perspective to take though.
