Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It onlu works if there are always a high rate of survivors There doesn't have to be a high rate of survival if the reproductive rate compensates for losses. E.g., if 80% of wild rabbits are eaten, but the remaining 20% can give birth to 5 bunnies per parent per lifetime, the population will be stable. I have no idea where you're getting your beliefs, but most of it is wrong in both the math and biology.
What I am saying is that rate needs to continue to be positive and out of 20% survivors many will not carry the survival gene. And on top of that, it isn't just one thing that kills a rabbit in your example, the climate, not finding mates, predators, disease and more all must be overcome at once. Survivors must overcome a wide array of adversity and succesfully pass on that combination of abilities and this needs to…
I think you’re ignoring a bunch of dynamics by trying to model it with binary.
Prey population going down means a predator population also going down and a competitor population going up. It’s not an endgame, it’s just an “ear” of a very complex attractor, which with time only sharpens it ability to have as little escape points as possible.
1°C fluctuation by itself does nothing, because life usually has much wider tolerance due to long seasonal fluctuations. A global +-degree means there will be a tipping point somewhere which would bring a local drastic change. Locally life may suffer, but it counteracts with migration and preexisting diversity. It simply suffers everywhere, always. It’s a modus operandi. A little bit more is barely fatal.
So yes, survival is the default because life naturally specializes in it.