Scattered reports (stuff I pick up in the mainstream press) suggest that the rate of extinctions is picking up; some insect species or another disappears; a rare plant can't be found; specialists haven't seen their favorite creature for years and years. Even if every report of a disappeared (extinct) species were true, it still wouldn't add up to a mass extinction.

Public discourse can jump the gun. Here in Minneapolis, the City Council's stated intention to shift substantial funding from the police department to social services hasn't been acting upon. Still, some people think the police have been totally defunded. I've heard about the mass extinction so often I could easily believe that we were half-way there.

A bad weather day (too hot, too cold, too damp, too dry, too windy, too...) is routinely blamed on global warming, which is almost certainly an error--weather and climate are two different things, but people get confused.

The galaxy turns as it circles the great cosmic toilet bowl. It's just a matter of time.

The conclusions in those articles are, essentially, that we are not currently seeing a mass extinction event, but that there may be one over the next few hundred years. That sounds reasonable. Both the Barnosky and Erwin articles add the caveat that if humanity pulls its finger out and stops eroding ecosystems and reduces emissions, that it might not happen. Again this is reasonable, but this is where the problem lies. Is humanity going to stop?

So what people are getting exercised about when they harp on about climate change and the destruction of ecosystems is the inertia in this human behaviour. Is humanity able to reduce carbon emissions, are they going to stop exploiting areas of land where healthy ecosystems are found? The population is still rising, all efforts to reduce emissions keep falling short, or paying lip service to the calls to do something. In areas where there are healthy ecosystems, poverty pushes people through desperation to exploit the land and cut down the ecosystem where they live.

So in reality the desperation is about this inertia, in the knowledge that if humanity does not change its trajectory, things are not going to end well.

One cause for hope is that humanity might fail in some way and through decline, reduce the destruction and emissions. 2020 is a good example, the emissions did fall, the pollution did reduce, because of the global pandemic.

The conclusions in those articles are, essentially, that we are not currently seeing a mass extinction event, but that there may be one over the next few hundred years. — Punshhh

Since extinction is a global-scale event, on a global timescale, if there is a mass extinction in the next few hundred years, then it seems reasonable to conclude we are in fact in a mass extinction already.

"Regardless, scientists agree that today’s extinction rate is hundreds, or even thousands, of times higher than the natural baseline rate. Judging from the fossil record, the baseline extinction rate is about one species per every one million species per year."

https://naturalhistory.si.edu/education/teaching-resources/paleontology/extinction-over-time

We could try for intentional non-procreation. Give it a try!

Here in Minneapolis, the City Council's stated intention to shift substantial funding from the police department to social services hasn't been acting upon — Bitter Crank

Do you think it ever will be? Would voting in new councilmen make a difference?

The galaxy turns as it circles the great cosmic toilet bowl. It's just a matter of time. — Bitter Crank

True. It's the psychology of apocalypticism that has me fascinated. Why do people grasp and believe that the situation is much worse than it actually is? Does it satisfy some need? If so, what? Is it a way to resolve anxiety associated with the unknown?

Again this is reasonable, but this is where the problem lies. Is humanity going to stop? — Punshhh

Right, but just focus for a second on this: the scientific community does not support the conclusion that we're 'presiding over a mass extinction event', yet some people believe it steadfastly. It's close to impossible to get them to even question their assumptions. They walk away before you can even present the truth to them, as if they dont want their belief threatened.

Why does this happen?

Since extinction is a global-scale event, on a global timescale, if there is a mass extinction in the next few hundred years, then it seems reasonable to conclude we are in fact in a mass extinction already. — Pantagruel

It may seem reasonable, but it isn't. Look again at the Atlantic article about Erwin. He goes into more detail about what a mass extinction event really is.

We could try for intentional non-procreation. Give it a try! — schopenhauer1

That would require dictatorship.

I read the article. He seems to be splitting hairs and is not saying that a "mass die-off" isn't happening. Only that it doesn't fit the classical pattern of a "mass extinction".

Statistically, the number of species lost fits the profile of a mass-extinction. If it doesn't follow the usual "pattern", that's likely because the human contribution is a novel element.

read the article. He seems to be splitting hairs and is not saying that a "mass die-off" isn't happening. Only that it doesn't fit the classical pattern of a "mass extinction". — Pantagruel

If you want to say that human activity is associated with extinction or near extinction of a large number of species all over the world, you've got science on your side.

If you want to say we're in a mass extinction, you don't.

Statistically, the number of species lost fits the profile of a mass-extinction. — Pantagruel

And yet, we are not in a mass extinction event.

it doesn't follow the usual "pattern", that's likely because the human contribution is a novel element. — Pantagruel

The worst mass extinction event was brought on by the dominant lifeform of the era. Scientists can handle that kind of variable.

In short, if you say we're in a mass extinction event, you dont have science behind you.

I look at it differently. If intentionality could be ascribed to nature, it's pinned all its hopes on humans. Humans are endowed with an intelligence that's, as far as we know, unprecedented in the history of life on Earth. This makes us, among other things, capable of understanding what life is all about - we can find out the basic ingredients to keep the fire of life burning for as long as possible - and since we've discovered, for better of for worse, that we're just another cog in the wheel of nature and that the entire biosphere is a finely balanced system whose overall health depends on everything that's in it, from the lowly microbes that manage waste disposal to the giant blue whales that roam the vast oceans, it becomes obvious what course of action humans should pursue - nature needs to be handled with care. The fundamental realization is that insofar as life is concerned it's not us vs. them but that it's all us.

Given this fact, if there's a sixth mass extinction in progress, it's going to be different this time round because this one will, if all goes well, have a good ending. What am I talking about? Humans, given another couple of decades or maybe a century, will have developed the means to maintain the biosphere at optimal levels in terms of environmental parameters such as biodiversity, population, etc. In essence, nature has decided to suffer a sixth extinction at humanity's hands only because it goes toward ending the phenomenon of extinctions once and for all. We, humans, are the saviors of the planet although it may not look like that at the moment. Wait and watch...

You're saying we're part of Gaia's efforts to engineer herself?

If you want to say we're in a mass extinction, you don't. — frank

According to one article. The suggested consensus I posted from the Smithsonian website is that it is at least an open question. So maybe try to keep your perspective a little more open. At best, you may be right.

You're saying we're part of Gaia's efforts to engineer herself? — frank

Thereabouts, yes.

If you want to say we're in a mass extinction, you don't.
— frank

According to one article. The suggested consensus I posted from the Smithsonian website is that it is at least an open question — Pantagruel

In the face of the openness of the question, would you back down from claiming that we're in an extinction event?

Thereabouts, yes. — TheMadFool

I read a science fiction story once that was from the point of view of a gaia-like organism. It was trippy.

I look at it differently. If intentionality could be ascribed to nature, it's pinned all its hopes on humans. Humans are endowed with an intelligence that's, as far as we know, unprecedented in the history of life on Earth. — TheMadFool

Oh my....

I'm open to nature maybe having intentionality. But...

Pinned it's hopes on humans? Hopes for what? Violent suicidal nature wrecking madness?

Humans are the most intelligent creature only if we define intelligence as being of a human nature.

If we define intelligence as survival, as nature seems to do, we are the species with thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down it's own throat, an imminent self extinction threat we typically find too boring to discuss, even in a presidential campaign. Yes, that again.

Why does such strong evidence have to be relentlessly ignored by those who pride themselves on their ability to perform logical analysis of observable real world data? Here's the answer. We ain't intelligent!

My guess is that humans are just one in a long series of experiments nature is conducting in a process that will span millions of more years.

If you want to say we're in a mass extinction, you don't.
— frank

According to one article. The suggested consensus I posted from the Smithsonian website is that it is at least an open question
— Pantagruel

In the face of the openness of the question, would you back down from claiming that we're in an extinction event? — frank

I read a lot of statistical documentation a couple of years ago (which is at least as new as the article you cited) that in and of itself is equivalent to a "mass die-off". So call it what you like, numerically, statistically, species are dying off at an unprecedented rate.

It's either leave everything to the vagaries of fortune or have an intelligent organism, who knows the ins and outs of life and living, to manage life on Earth. What would be your choice?

I read a science fiction story once that was from the point of view of a gaia-like organism. It was trippy. — frank

Fact imitating fiction? Possible, very possible.

Fact imitating fiction? Possible, very possible. — TheMadFool

I don't know. All you have to do is become immersed in nature for a few years and you cant miss the dispersed intentionality of the whole thing. I get why people think in terms of Gaia.

It occurs to me that misanthropy might be what I'm really wondering about.

Is it misanthropy that makes people go for the evil human vs innocent nature theme? Or is it a covert sadism? Maybe both.

So call it what you like, numerically, statistically, species are dying off at an unprecedented rate. — Pantagruel

No doubt about that. "Mass extinction event" has a particular scientific usage. I was focusing on scientific language.

True. It's the psychology of apocalypticism that has me fascinated. Why do people grasp and believe that the situation is much worse than it actually is? — frank

It's possible that religiously based apocalypse scenarios have migrated to the environment. "The Final Judgement" is a powerful concept, and whether it's delivered by a Father Sky God or Mother Earth God doesn't matter all that much. Humans are environmentally guilty (we've been guilty for a long time--wiping out mastodons, saber tooth tigers, Neanderthals, passenger pigeons, etc. The chickens of judgement are coming home to roost.

Then there is selectivity bias; it isn't hard to read widely and deeply and find only negative predictions. There are dozens of confounding biases that we are prone to.

We could try for intentional non-procreation. Give it a try! — schopenhauer1

The best (and only good) anti-natalism argument.

No doubt about that. "Mass extinction event" has a particular scientific usage. I was focusing on scientific language. — frank

:up:

It's possible that religiously based apocalypse scenarios have migrated to the environmen — Bitter Crank

Would you agree that Marxism was a form of apocalypticism?

Perhaps the apocalypse has already happened in various ways, and we are already entering a post-apocalyptic era. The post apocalyptic is the stuff of fiction but perhaps the edges of fiction and reality are becoming more blurry day by day.

Would you agree that Marxism was a form of apocalypticism? — frank

The worse fate that Marx predicted was that the Bourgeoisie and Working Class would destroy each other IF they were not able to resolve the question of ownership (of the means of production) in favor of one class or the other.

Marx, of course, was in favor of the conflict resolving in favor of the Working Class, but he didn't guarantee it.

Were one to be living in an advanced industrial society where the conflict between Workers and Capital resulted in mutual destruction, it might well seem like the end of the world, but maybe it would be no worse than the last world war (as if that wasn't altogether bad enough).

There has not been a working class movement in the 20th-21st centuries capable of powerfully battling the capitalists, because the capitalists have so far always had a well-armed government on their side. If this class battle went nuclear, then sure, it would be the apocalypse.

The most intellectually satisfying apocalyptic fiction has involved some deus ex machine (disease or war) which leaves a few people healthy and whole, who given their talents and good intentions, are able to put together a workable small but tenuous fragment of human society. Kunstler's A World Made by Hand quartet fills the bill.

I don't know. All you have to do is become immersed in nature for a few years and you cant miss the dispersed intentionality of the whole thing. I get why people think in terms of Gaia.

It occurs to me that misanthropy might be what I'm really wondering about.

Is it misanthropy that makes people go for the evil human vs innocent nature theme? Or is it a covert sadism? Maybe both — frank

To begin with, we shouldn't judge the contestants before the contest is over. Humans are only beginning to understand the complexity of nature and ergo, much of the mistakes we've been accused of commiting can be chalked up to ignorance. Misanthropy is justified only if we don't take measures to stall and reverse the damage done to nature in the coming few decades or century which seems unlikely as it's a do-or-die situation any way you look at it. To make the long story short, humans have just been informed of nature's plight- expect some time-lag before we take action and before these actions produce tangible results.

Since extinction is a global-scale event, on a global timescale, if there is a mass extinction in the next few hundred years, then it seems reasonable to conclude we are in fact in a mass extinction already.

Agreed. It's splitting hairs to think otherwise.