[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnat...

For all that we've learned and have built, we still don't have a Plan B. No foreseeable alternative to this planet if it goes belly up, one way or the other.

What's worse, we're still not over our politics and economics and artificial borders; all the things that keep us rooted here and actually headed backwards into primitivity.

Even if Elon Musk or some other zillionaire launches a successful extraterrestrial habitation program, sooner or later it will fall prey to the same old national interests from back home.

There is a well known species interaction principle, which basically summarizes to - the growth of species A is negatively correlated with the growth of species B. This is especially well defined in predator/prey relationships. But let's just take a simple growth pattern (logistic growth) - which is continous population growth in an environment where resources are limited:

dN/dt = rN[k-N/k]

r - rate of increase N - population size k - carrying capacity

'k' is my favority ecological parameter. It's the theoretical limit an environment can hold a certain population of a species. The idea is, when a species surpasses k, population growth will decrease and/or even become negative until resoures are abundant again (sort of like an asymptote).

I always felt that Humans are the only species that alter their environment's 'k' through technology. For example, houses, heating, energy, etc.. all allow us to live in environments that we might not have been able to. This allows us to expand our population size much higher.

So are we going to surpass 'k' so high, that when we finally run out of resources we drive ourselves and other species into mass extinction? And will the environment be able to recover quick enough for our species population to stablize and recover?

If people genuinely cared about the welfare of animals, they'd have to accept uncomfortable truths like the fact that wild animals suffer immensely, and that nature itself is cruel. In many cases it may actually be beneficial from an utilitarian perspective to have some species die off. Being infested with painful or mind-controlling parasites, and being slowly gnawed to death are ordinary events for wild animals. They suffer some of the worst fates on this planet.

In some cases, like mosquitoes and malaria, killing off species might be the most heroic and useful action in the history of Earth.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6296/288

says "Across 65% of the terrestrial surface, land use and related pressures have caused biotic intactness to decline beyond 10%, the proposed “safe” planetary boundary."

How is "biotic intactness" defined?

This statement is so weak it's almost a tautology. What do we really know about the effects of biodiversity loss? How sound is the "safe limit" and what do we expect to happen when biodiversity falls below it?

On the downside this is a rather long essay, on the plus side it does not require familiarity with the author's work.

EDIT: Just a runaway thought: why is biodiversity important? If we are optimizing for the general well-being of humans and living beings on earth (which is the frame of reference I am using), then extinction of a species while increasing experiential diversity seems worthwhile.

In addition, the extinction of a species is only sad to those who remember. Many cultures have merged in history to become nations we see today, but nobody misses the oh-so-glory days of a specific Northern German tribe in BC 500.

As to the beauty we experience from diversity of species (seeing them, interacting with them), I would much rather enjoy technological experiences over that natural experience.

Perhaps this makes it sound all too all-or-nothing-esque, but it seems that there is a general assumption that increased biodiversity is good beyond measure.

Where Do The Children Play? - Cat Stevens https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a4DCxAi020

As a young adult, what can I do to help?