I think I get it: the article is saying we're in a minor mass extinction and you're suggesting the threshold for a large mass extinction is exceedingly high — w

I think I get it: the article is saying we're in a minor mass extinction and you're suggesting the threshold for a large mass extinction is exceedingly high — we're not even close. (And I am guessing you brought nuclear war in as an example of post apocalyptic science fiction that even still would not push us to the large mass extinction threshold.) "If there is a geologic precedent for what industrial civilisation has been up to in the past few centuries, it is something like the volcanoes of the end-Permian mass extinction." These kinds of things (mass extinction, health of the planet) are things that I increasingly show an abundance of caution for. Not doing so seems like the horrific alternative. I get that there have been some very high bars to make this #6 mass extinction, but also downplaying what is happening because it is not yet a record seems reckless.