> The threat to biodiversity is not new, > not necessarily accelerating No it's slowing down with a mass extinction of most other life on the planet. > mostl

> The threat to biodiversity is not new, > not necessarily accelerating No it's slowing down with a mass extinction of most other life on the planet. > mostly not caused by economic growth or prosperity Nope not caused by real estate infringing on nature, not caused by intensive farming methods using pesticides, not caused by the fossil fuel industry, not caused by intensively farming animals. https://fortune.com/2019/03/06/human-land-use-study/ https://fortune.com/2019/03/06/human-land-use-study/ > nor by climate change Nope highly adapted animals are very similar to humans and can simply move to areas more conducive to their survival and avoid any impact from climate change. > won’t be reversed by retreating into organic self-sufficiency. Look at Chernobyl that proves that in fact it will be exactly. No humans, lots of biodiversity. Lots of humans, very low biodiversity. Low or no economic activity, high biodiversity... etc. > A favourite nostrum of many environmentalists is that you cannot have infinite growth with finite resources. But this is plain wrong, because economic growth comes from doing more with less. So if I invent a new car engine that gets twice as many miles per gallon, I’ve caused economic growth but we’ll use less fuel. Likewise if I increase the yield of a crop, I need less land and probably less fuel too. This “growth as shrinkage” happens all the time: think how much smaller mobile phones are than they once were. Ever heard of Jevon's Paradox? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox