The animals that don't survive mass extinction events don't benefit from the subsequent biodiversity, that's why. I'm not of the opinion that we're facing such

The animals that don't survive mass extinction events don't benefit from the subsequent biodiversity, that's why. I'm not of the opinion that we're facing such a dire situation as alarmists like the guy that wrote this are suggesting, but simply pointing out that it simply doesn't matter that some species will survive or that even humans will survive if the vast majority don't. "Sure, most humans will die, but just imagine how great all the biodiversity will be after a few million years! Won't that be great!" Maybe some crazy Peta people would think that, but otherwise I think biodiversity is hardly a compelling argument for people that starve as a result of any changes to the planet. Obviously life would survive just about damn near anything, and has in the past, but at what cost, and in what form? The questions aren't "are humans capable of damaging the earth to the point that threatens humans ability to survive on earth" because that's definitely a yes. It's more of a question of whether we are already or not. If we purposely wanted to destroy the earth we could, for example global thermonuclear war, engineered plagues, etc. We could absolutely make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves, no question there. So the whole "are we big enough" simply doesn't make sense.