This is an interesting analysis, but it does feel a bit apples-to-oranges. It is good to seek perspective on the impact we are having, but in terms of "are we i

This is an interesting analysis, but it does feel a bit apples-to-oranges. It is good to seek perspective on the impact we are having, but in terms of "are we in an extinction event" it feels woefully premature to me, perhaps even comically futile. 1. For all of the others, we are piecing together bits of evidence spanning eons. Can we really compare estimated background extinction rates over hundreds of millions of years to the by-comparison hyper-detailed and extensive data we have from the last 100? 2. This time it's different. Humans are categorically different from past drivers of extinction. I don't think there is a whole lot to extrapolate from. We can selectively preserve species we care about. We can run roughshod over others without even noticing. The impacts of our actions on the global ecosystem, from construction to medicine to pollution to deforestation, are unique. We could hold in a relative stasis where biodiversity continues declining but at too slow of a rate to really be considered a mass extinction. Or we could blow it all up tomorrow. Or we could unlock bioengineering and see an explosion unlike any before. By the criteria in the article it could be millions of years before we can say anything conclusively.