4 ms·

If this headline feels overwhelming to you, I highly recommend this article by Stewart Brand: https://aeon.co/essays/we-are-not-edging-up-to-a-mass-extinction h

If this headline feels overwhelming to you, I highly recommend this article by Stewart Brand: https://aeon.co/essays/we-are-not-edging-up-to-a-mass-extinction https://aeon.co/essays/we-are-not-edging-up-to-a-mass-extinc... Note that it’s animal populations that are decreasing rapidly, not species.

jfk13 8y ago
> Note that it’s animal populations that are decreasing rapidly, not species. Really? "Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate ... as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century"[1]. I'm sure estimates vary widely, but that sounds rapid to me. [1] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/ https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/el...
- bhelkey 8y ago
  I believe the point was that number in the title (60%) referred to animal populations not species.
snailletters 8y ago
Stewart Brand recently hosted Chris D. Thomas to talk at the Long Now Seminar about anthropocene speciation [0]. The premise is that current wild species are under severe duress due to changing environments, however nature is thriving in the age of extinction. 0. http://longnow.org/seminars/02018/jun/19/are-we-initiating-great-anthropocene-speciation-event/ http://longnow.org/seminars/02018/jun/19/are-we-initiating-g...
- cbkeller 8y ago
  There's some recent discussion here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1080.2 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1080.2 I don't know if the citations therein are cherry-picked, but oddly enough it seemed like mostly what you might call "public intellectuals" on the "it's not so bad" side and lower-profile ordinary lab/field scientists on the "doom and gloom" side - a bit of a reversal from the usual trope
mac01021 8y ago
> it’s animal populations that are decreasing rapidly, not species. Should this really console me? If there are only trace amounts of each species left, isn't that practically the same as extinction?

jfk13 8y ago

> Note that it’s animal populations that are decreasing rapidly, not species. Really? "Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate ... as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century"[1]. I'm sure estimates vary widely, but that sounds rapid to me. [1] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/ https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/el...

bhelkey 8y ago
I believe the point was that number in the title (60%) referred to animal populations not species.

snailletters 8y ago

Stewart Brand recently hosted Chris D. Thomas to talk at the Long Now Seminar about anthropocene speciation [0]. The premise is that current wild species are under severe duress due to changing environments, however nature is thriving in the age of extinction. 0. http://longnow.org/seminars/02018/jun/19/are-we-initiating-great-anthropocene-speciation-event/ http://longnow.org/seminars/02018/jun/19/are-we-initiating-g...

cbkeller 8y ago
There's some recent discussion here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1080.2 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1080.2 I don't know if the citations therein are cherry-picked, but oddly enough it seemed like mostly what you might call "public intellectuals" on the "it's not so bad" side and lower-profile ordinary lab/field scientists on the "doom and gloom" side - a bit of a reversal from the usual trope

mac01021 8y ago

> it’s animal populations that are decreasing rapidly, not species. Should this really console me? If there are only trace amounts of each species left, isn't that practically the same as extinction?