I take it that a more ethical approach would be allowing more folks to suffer and die off via natural collapse (that we were reasonably sure was going to happen) rather than culling fewer in advance to prevent. 'Course, visibility is the real issue, isn't it? If we were to cull, the media circus created of it and opinions on both sides would be strong enough to bring on sheer mayhem anyway. Better to play it safe and let things crumble in their own due time. That way, no one really knows how many suffer and die because survivors will generally keep to themselves with minimal contact outside of
How about it Johnny? You think?
This is a more likely scenario. 95% die-off in 20 years or so. Hopefully all the media will die off or be reduced to cannibalism. 400 million per year dying off, without burial, stinking or being eaten by others. The soots settling out and real global warming setting in. Tougher and tougher conditions faster and faster for the 1/2 billion survivors. Species dying off in greater and greater numbers as thermageddon (term from the early 90s book) takes hold with many times more CO2 and self releasing methane. Entire sections of oceans warming then fizzing up in methane bursts with tsunamis, as the oceans rise 80 feet or more. Gradual die-off of more survivors, and most species.
The end of the Anthropocene Epoch and the beginning of a long recovery, with harsh conditions prevailing a very long time until becoming slowly more amenable to life. Even the Yellowstone super eruption will not cool it down more than 10*F from the +25*F, in 2000 years. Then those aerosols will also settle out.
The chances of humans making it are slim. While at the undersea "smokers", life goes on.