[fhars]

The problem is not so much that we are causing species loss at a higher than average rate, it‘s more the we are causing species loss at a higher rate than the end-permian extinction event (which no land animal with an adult body mass over 25kg survived).

Life will recover from the anthropocene over the next few million or so years even if we continue business as usual. It will just not be a world I want to die out in.

[squirrelicus]

So that's the jump I don't understand. Why would dramatic decreases in biodiversity cause any dying off of humans at all?

[DanBC]

Because they're caused by changes to the ecosystem, and some of those changes are going to kill us off.

They also cause further changes to the ecosystem in weird complex feedback loops, which will also kill us off.

They'll also collapse some food chains which will kill off many humans.

[squirrelicus]

What changes and what food chains? Your statement is just false. We don't live off the wild. We're long past that point, and the developing world is increasingly past that point.

[djmips]

I see your point. If we can survive on Mars without bringing along a huge amount of biodiversity then we can survive on Earth after turning it into Mars. Awesome. But maybe we can't survive on Mars after all.

[DanBC]

> We don't live off the wild.

You don't eat fish? You don't eat food that requires pollinators?

[squirrelicus]

I think all the fish I eat is farmed... Now I'm curious, because that's a partial counterpoint. Doesn't defeat the message, but it's certainly a gap.