Scientists warn entire branches of 'Tree of Life' are going extinct

The natural world is responding to climate change. Biodiversity is a luxury afforded by a benign environment. When the environment becomes more extreme, only the toughest species with the right mix of resilience and adaptability will survive. Mother nature doesn't do nostalgia and being cute won't cut it.

If humanity wants to survive, it really needs to max out its resilience, particularly with water, (green) energy and food. Instead we have been reducing it, building walls, cutting trade links and being picky. That's a luxury we can ill afford. The natural world doesn't do national boundaries, political regimes and the like. We are just one species. We toughen up or we become extinct. We really haven't learned much from the natural world, have we? What animals do out of instinct, we overthink and fail at.

I seem to recall there having been global mass-extinction level events in Earth's past. Yet, here we are.

I seem to recall there having been global mass-extinction level events in Earth's past. Yet, here we are.

That (some) humans may still remain after ecological disaster is a terribly poor argument against the importance of that disaster happening.

I seem to recall there having been global mass-extinction level events in Earth's past. Yet, here we are.

Good point. We already survived a big one.

We'll figure this one out; if in fact it ever were to take place.

JeanValJeanToday 02:30 pm JST

I seem to recall there having been global mass-extinction level events in Earth's past. Yet, here we are.gcFd1Today 03:34 pm JST

I seem to recall there having been global mass-extinction level events in Earth's past. Yet, here we are.

Good point. We already survived a big one.

We'll figure this one out; if in fact it ever were to take place.

The human species may survive but you and your children may not.

We'll figure this one out; if in fact it ever were to take place.

"We"? Do you mean scientists? They've already figured it out.

You just haven't been able to figure that out that they have.

I seem to recall there having been global mass-extinction level events in Earth's past. Yet, here we are.

Good point. We already survived a big one.

We'll figure this one out;

The last global mass extinction event happened 66 million years ago and killed off the dinosaurs. We as in the human race, didn't survive anything since we weren't around at the time; our earliest vaguely humanoid ancestors didn't even appear, in the form of homo habilis, until somewhere around 2.4 million years ago. Their earliest ancestors, the group of apes known as hominids, split from the chimps and bonobos some 7 million years ago.

So no, if we engineer ourselves a mass extinction event as we seem set on doing, there will be nothing to 'figure out'; we'll be gone, as dead as the dinosaurs. And Mother Earth will take her time, millions of years, evolving hopefully something a bit more intelligent than sapiens.

Trying to scare everyone so they get more funding and line their pockets. Some things never change, lol

Millions of insect species have disappeared.

Trying to scare everyone so they get more funding and line their pockets. Some things never change, lol

The Watership Down crew are here again.

Is negative information scaring you again young Steve?

Trying to scare everyone so they get more funding and line their pockets

The whole scientific community of the world... and you bring no evidence of this supposed global conspiracy? that is not a rational position to take, nor even minimally believable.

Trying to scare everyone so they get more funding and line their pockets.

It's revealing that those who make this argument are actually themselves heavily influenced by big money industries like tobacco, oil and gas, who want to continue lining their own pockets. Those profit-driven interests have been unmasked over and over again for deliberately manipulating scientific data and public opinion to obscure real threats to human health, and the health of the planet and all our co-inhabitants.

It's true (apparently) that the human species didn't exist when the dinosaurs went extinct. Yet, the apes would have existed(according to the theory of evolution) and survived. Do you think modern humans would be less capable of survival?

Of course, the ELE the caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and most other flora and fauna was an asteroid strike. That's hardly comparable to a slight, not without precedent warming period.

The Earth HAS been in an Ice Age since the asteroid strike, which still includes the far warmer Medieval Warm Period where Greenland(now covered in glacial ice) was populated and grapes were grown.

The article is disinformation.

Everyone, usual suspects getting so emotional. What you going to do about it? I’m more eco friendly than 90% posting here at least. Get rid of your cars, don’t go on holidays, don’t buy imported food and clothes, if you dont, then please cease and stop annoying the decent people.

It's true (apparently) that the human species didn't exist when the dinosaurs went extinct. Yet, the apes would have existed(according to the theory of evolution) and survived. Do you think modern humans would be less capable of survival?

What are you on about here?

Everyone, usual suspects getting so emotional

Everyone, usual suspects?

This,makes no sense,Steve.

Do you think modern humans would be less capable of survival?

Probably as capable of survival as the dinosaurs were last time? Most of them died out, but the direct descendants of a few dinosaurs remain.

For example, chickens. Birds are descended from theropods, a group of two-legged dinosaurs whose members included the tyrannosaurus rex and the smaller velociraptors. From king of the ancient world (tyrannosaurus) to the Colonel's main ingredient. Some legacy.

So modern humans, if any did survive, might follow a similar evolutionary path; becoming smaller and weaker, and prey to whatever species won the evolution lottery next time round.

The article is disinformation

Can you provide any reference where a respected institution of science in a related field contradicts anything of what is included in the article?

If not then your claim is false, specially since your own comment contains information that is not correct.

Everyone, usual suspects getting so emotional. What you going to do about it? 

Being in denial of the problem is one of the least useful things to do to.

The whole scientific community of the world.

This means every scientist living and breathing and walking on the earth?

This means every scientist living and breathing and walking on the earth?

No that is not what "the scientific community of the world" means, it makes no sense to have this misunderstanding of something easy to grasp.

I seem to recall there having been global mass-extinction level events in Earth's past. Yet, here we are.

Obviously you are not a dinosaur because if you were you'd probably have a different outlook on the severity of such events.

This means every scientist living and breathing and walking on the earth?

No that is not what "the scientific community of the world" means, it makes no sense to have this misunderstanding of something easy to grasp.

The scientific community refers to the total body of scientists and the interactions between them, it is not limited to institutes of science and their official statements.

This means every scientist living and breathing and walking on the earth?

No that is not what "the scientific community of the world" means, it makes no sense to have this misunderstanding of something easy to grasp.

The scientific community refers to the total body of scientists and the interactions between them, it is not limited to institutes of science and their official statements. Just like an official statement by BLM does not represent the views of the black community.

gcFd1Today 02:29 pm JST

The whole scientific community of the world.

This means every scientist living and breathing and walking on the earth?

I'm sure there is some absolutely terrible scientist that doesn't even understand the scientific method that could deny anything you don't like. Doesn't change the definition of scientific consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

The scientific community refers to the total body of scientists and the interactions between them, it is not limited to institutes of science and their official statements

If every single one of the institutions share the same conclusions then it is perfectly valid to generalize them to the scientific community of the world. There will always be individuals that are wrong, unprofessional or even openly irrational or fraudulent trying to contradict the consensus, that would not mean their opinions reflect more closely what the scientific community thinks about something.