Yes, I agree. Counting species is a terrible metric. We discover something like 15,000 new species every year. We really have no idea how many species are vanis

Yes, I agree. Counting species is a terrible metric. We discover something like 15,000 new species every year. We really have no idea how many species are vanishing each year, because we're only examining a tiny percentage. Another way to frame this is to ask: How many new species are created each year? Well, we don't really know-- but we do know that a new species can form in just two generations [1]. There may be thousands of species being created and destroyed every year for all we know. Not a useful metric. A more useful metric is how common a species was before extinction. Using an example from the article, the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker was very common before its extinction. Native Americans used its skulls as decoration and currency. Its eradication is a pretty big deal - BUT - I see some other HN comments lamenting how much things have changed "in my lifetime" and I think people may be unaware that these extinctions basically occurred approximately 200 years ago. There have not been sizable populations of this species for a very long time [2]. Again, the presentation of data and metrics appears to be painting a misleading picture. [1] https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/11/27/study-darwins-finches-reveals-new-species-can-develop-little-two-generations https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/11/27/study-darwins-finc... [2] https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Ivory-billed_Woodpecker/overview https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Ivory-billed_Woodpecker/...