Interesting that the Y axis of the graph is "families per million years." Does this mean that extinctions happening today within, say, the finch family, wouldn't register in the data until EVERY finch species went extinct, including house finches? We haven't wiped out many whole taxonomic families yet, and some contain thousands of species, so this would seem to badly underestimate the current extinction rate.
Also, it would be interesting to see how these historical extinction rates relate to the (estimated) total number of species on Earth at the time. As I understand it, Earth is now thought to enjoy the highest species diversity it has ever had, meaning there is more to lose, but perhaps more resilience.
Excellent question. Maybe someone more knowledgeable will chime in, but as a guess, I'd say that because most assessments of extinctions come from examining the very spotty fossil record, they don't try to claim knowledge at the fine-grained species level over millions of years.
But it is also a reminder of the true scale of a mass extinction, and why we're not in one. For the first time in Earth history there's a species capable of mapping that history while also disrupting it (in a matter of decades) at the millions-of-years scale.
Not sure what an ecologist would say about resilience in the context of extraordinary diversity. More lost species, certainly, and a complexity that protects against complete erasure, but a vast suite of relationships to be unraveled with only a small number of key losses. Another excellent question...
I so appreciated this post and your discussion of hope in biodiversity conservation. I also recently wrote a post here on Substack about the study you discuss - as you note, the authors went to great lengths to explain they were not saying extinctions are not a problem, just that according to our (current) definition of mass extinctions we are not currently in one. Which is good - mass extinctions, by definition, are unsurvivable for the vast majority of species!
But every species lost (beyond the natural processes that guide the background extinction rate) is a travesty and I believe we should do our best to prevent it.
The decline in extinctions in the past 100 years is the great, hopeful news I needed to hear that conservation works. We know how to stop extinctions, as long as conservation work is adequately funded.
I worked in conservation for a couple of decades and am now a science writer, and I focus much of my writing to try and raise awareness about the biodiversity crisis, which experts agree is as much a problem as climate change. Yet you hardly hear about biodiversity loss in the media and therefore the public is hardly aware of what's happening and hence governments aren't going to make it a priority to fund.
Thank you for this thoughtful essay, it brings me hope that we'll be able to turn the tide after all.
I study birds. It's pretty clear many species can survive even rapid climate change (now 27x faster than during the PETM, as I explained here: Modern climate change is 27x faster than historic global warming mass extinction events; https://substack.com/home/post/p-177098379). Some won't. While hundreds of species are shifting their ranges north, oak-dependent species aren't going anywhere - because oaks can't fly and are very slow-growing. By 2100, that morning walk checklist of birds may have a 50% turnover in species - some new, some gone. Same thing with insects, plants, etc. The big question is what that does to the ecosystem in that area. Undoubtedly, there will be unpredictable cascades producing yet more winners and losers.
That's all very well said, Stephen. Thank you for the insights, esp. regarding the speed of warming and those oak-dependent species (which goes well beyond birds). I think "unpredictable cascades" is an idea we should all be familiar with as the ecological changes ratchet forward. Heat and other altered-climate impacts may not be, as the study's authors note, a significant driver of extinctions to date, but those impacts and cascades should pile up just with the warming that's already baked in. Thanks very much for chiming in.
Excellent article about a potentially very important study. But also need to be cautious about “single study syndrome.” Hopefully, new research will confirm its hopeful conclusion.
Also, continents are just big islands. More resilient than small islands, but invasive species are still a big problem
Thank you, Alan. Yes, I didn't get into the problem of invasives on continents, but every ecosystem is affected by human activity and introduced species are a big part of that. I see it all around me here in the Northeast forests, with the hemlock, ash, and beech trees following the chestnuts into an impoverished presence. There's a whole conversation to be had about the nuances behind what we label "invasive", but they're a key part of the disruption.
Great to see you picking up on that paper. A good analysis as well.
My take on it is that our history of extinction over the last 500 years is not a guide to what will happen, but that is absolutely not a consolation. The last 100 years have seen the shrinking and reduction in number of ecological niches, driven by urbanisation and intensive agriculture. This is a departure from the previous 500 years and needs fresh thought.
The previous extinctions were due to the loss of island populations that has effectively stopped. Going forward we need to consider the loss of low-nutrient grassland, of salt marshes., other patches of marginal land that can be swept u by commonplace development. Most of these still exist somewhere, so we haven't lost the species they support. We tend to forget the consequences of losing dominant species - in Europe we are losing European Ash, and with it the bugs, aphids and moths that relied upon it. When the USA lost it's Chestnuts how many other species became effectively extinct. This is a slow attrition, populations shrinking and being lost one by one.
There is another side to this as well, one that biologists are a bit uncomfortable with. Humans create new niches just as they destroy them. Brownfield sites are the quintessential human invention. They are wonderful. In general ruderal species are having a wonderful time exploiting the debris and scrap that humans are so ashamed of. These habitats offer the opportunity for the emergence of new species. We've had two new Senecio species appear in the UK, stable fertile hybrids. So many plants are pools of incipient new species, just think of roses, dandelions, brambles. Animals are less flexible, and insects in particular have devices to prevent hybridisation, but social insects especially have the scope for expanding rapidly into new habitats, where natural selection can work its magic. I'd love to find a new ant species splitting off from Lasius niger .
I expect a large number of species will be lost, lots of staphylenid beetles that have been struggling for decades, but over a few hundred years we should see the emergence of new species fully adapted to the new world we have created.
Well said, Gustav. Too many points for me to respond to here, but on the loss of trees I'll note that in Eastern North America the hemlocks, ash, and beech trees are being thinned dramatically by various introduced species. As you note, there are so many other species associated with and in relation to those species that decline along with them.
And yes, some species quickly adapt to the kinds of disruption and decline we bring to biological complexity, but it seems that we're moving far too fast for systems to adapt intact. It's never been a question of the natural world disappearing. It's about losing the incredibly rich and complex array of life that is the product of a timespan far beyond ours.
Jason, you are the maestro of words. I'm honored to be mentioned, even if it is part of a refutation, or expansion, of what I claimed in my piece. This is a conversation and I'm glad to be part of it. I don't know any other science writer who is able to capture these concepts not just clearly but poetically.
Something that's been on my mind regarding recent news: How can we explain tipping points or ocean acidification to everyday citizens and connect them to actions they are taking or not taking? People care about these things but don't understand when the words get so complex. Most of the news just leaves people frightened. They are tuning out.
Thank you, Amanda. You're very much part of the conversation, and doing good work.
As for communicating tipping points or acidification in broader ways than what we're doing in our corner here, it's tough. Not only because of the complexity, but because of the pretty unavoidable doomsaying that underlies it. It's hard to put a bright-side context on the AMOC slowing down or the Amazon becoming a CO2 emitter or the weakening of diatom shells in a more acidic sea, when none of those things has a visible turnaround on any human timescale. I suppose the best we can do is explain those dark clouds in the clearest possible language and then tie it to all that can be done to reduce their likelihood. Which, now that I say it, sounds like a scare tactic... So other than simply pushing more palatable messages about things more easily understood and fixed, I suppose we have to write beautifully about how the real world works and the consequence of our actions, both good and bad.
Outstanding and important article, Jason. Thank you
But afraid I still see this from this perspective "but even as small bulwarks for frogs, bees, lemurs, and corals are maintained, whole continents and oceans are still being transformed" because our work is looking at how the slow but sure impact on humans may play out (in generations, of course.)
Thank you, Elba. And as the essay makes clear, I think, I understand the need to keep the long-term perspective. Maybe Jane Goodall is right, though, to insist on highlighting the small bulwarks while keeping both eyes on the looming clouds.
I appreciate your mention of my words on hope, especially in the company of Jane Goodall’s hope in action. Thanks for your brilliant work in brining us a balanced view of things. ⭐️
Jason, you just gifted the bridge for my draft about trout I witnessed in a conservation stream and a heated community meeting concerning pausing hurricane reconstruction.
Merci.
This essay is one of the many whys I am one of your Founding members.🌿
Interesting that the Y axis of the graph is "families per million years." Does this mean that extinctions happening today within, say, the finch family, wouldn't register in the data until EVERY finch species went extinct, including house finches? We haven't wiped out many whole taxonomic families yet, and some contain thousands of species, so this would seem to badly underestimate the current extinction rate.
Also, it would be interesting to see how these historical extinction rates relate to the (estimated) total number of species on Earth at the time. As I understand it, Earth is now thought to enjoy the highest species diversity it has ever had, meaning there is more to lose, but perhaps more resilience.
Excellent question. Maybe someone more knowledgeable will chime in, but as a guess, I'd say that because most assessments of extinctions come from examining the very spotty fossil record, they don't try to claim knowledge at the fine-grained species level over millions of years.
But it is also a reminder of the true scale of a mass extinction, and why we're not in one. For the first time in Earth history there's a species capable of mapping that history while also disrupting it (in a matter of decades) at the millions-of-years scale.
Not sure what an ecologist would say about resilience in the context of extraordinary diversity. More lost species, certainly, and a complexity that protects against complete erasure, but a vast suite of relationships to be unraveled with only a small number of key losses. Another excellent question...
I so appreciated this post and your discussion of hope in biodiversity conservation. I also recently wrote a post here on Substack about the study you discuss - as you note, the authors went to great lengths to explain they were not saying extinctions are not a problem, just that according to our (current) definition of mass extinctions we are not currently in one. Which is good - mass extinctions, by definition, are unsurvivable for the vast majority of species!
But every species lost (beyond the natural processes that guide the background extinction rate) is a travesty and I believe we should do our best to prevent it.
The decline in extinctions in the past 100 years is the great, hopeful news I needed to hear that conservation works. We know how to stop extinctions, as long as conservation work is adequately funded.
I worked in conservation for a couple of decades and am now a science writer, and I focus much of my writing to try and raise awareness about the biodiversity crisis, which experts agree is as much a problem as climate change. Yet you hardly hear about biodiversity loss in the media and therefore the public is hardly aware of what's happening and hence governments aren't going to make it a priority to fund.
Thank you for this thoughtful essay, it brings me hope that we'll be able to turn the tide after all.
I study birds. It's pretty clear many species can survive even rapid climate change (now 27x faster than during the PETM, as I explained here: Modern climate change is 27x faster than historic global warming mass extinction events; https://substack.com/home/post/p-177098379). Some won't. While hundreds of species are shifting their ranges north, oak-dependent species aren't going anywhere - because oaks can't fly and are very slow-growing. By 2100, that morning walk checklist of birds may have a 50% turnover in species - some new, some gone. Same thing with insects, plants, etc. The big question is what that does to the ecosystem in that area. Undoubtedly, there will be unpredictable cascades producing yet more winners and losers.
That's all very well said, Stephen. Thank you for the insights, esp. regarding the speed of warming and those oak-dependent species (which goes well beyond birds). I think "unpredictable cascades" is an idea we should all be familiar with as the ecological changes ratchet forward. Heat and other altered-climate impacts may not be, as the study's authors note, a significant driver of extinctions to date, but those impacts and cascades should pile up just with the warming that's already baked in. Thanks very much for chiming in.
Excellent article about a potentially very important study. But also need to be cautious about “single study syndrome.” Hopefully, new research will confirm its hopeful conclusion.
Also, continents are just big islands. More resilient than small islands, but invasive species are still a big problem
Thank you, Alan. Yes, I didn't get into the problem of invasives on continents, but every ecosystem is affected by human activity and introduced species are a big part of that. I see it all around me here in the Northeast forests, with the hemlock, ash, and beech trees following the chestnuts into an impoverished presence. There's a whole conversation to be had about the nuances behind what we label "invasive", but they're a key part of the disruption.
Great to see you picking up on that paper. A good analysis as well.
My take on it is that our history of extinction over the last 500 years is not a guide to what will happen, but that is absolutely not a consolation. The last 100 years have seen the shrinking and reduction in number of ecological niches, driven by urbanisation and intensive agriculture. This is a departure from the previous 500 years and needs fresh thought.
The previous extinctions were due to the loss of island populations that has effectively stopped. Going forward we need to consider the loss of low-nutrient grassland, of salt marshes., other patches of marginal land that can be swept u by commonplace development. Most of these still exist somewhere, so we haven't lost the species they support. We tend to forget the consequences of losing dominant species - in Europe we are losing European Ash, and with it the bugs, aphids and moths that relied upon it. When the USA lost it's Chestnuts how many other species became effectively extinct. This is a slow attrition, populations shrinking and being lost one by one.
There is another side to this as well, one that biologists are a bit uncomfortable with. Humans create new niches just as they destroy them. Brownfield sites are the quintessential human invention. They are wonderful. In general ruderal species are having a wonderful time exploiting the debris and scrap that humans are so ashamed of. These habitats offer the opportunity for the emergence of new species. We've had two new Senecio species appear in the UK, stable fertile hybrids. So many plants are pools of incipient new species, just think of roses, dandelions, brambles. Animals are less flexible, and insects in particular have devices to prevent hybridisation, but social insects especially have the scope for expanding rapidly into new habitats, where natural selection can work its magic. I'd love to find a new ant species splitting off from Lasius niger .
I expect a large number of species will be lost, lots of staphylenid beetles that have been struggling for decades, but over a few hundred years we should see the emergence of new species fully adapted to the new world we have created.
Well said, Gustav. Too many points for me to respond to here, but on the loss of trees I'll note that in Eastern North America the hemlocks, ash, and beech trees are being thinned dramatically by various introduced species. As you note, there are so many other species associated with and in relation to those species that decline along with them.
And yes, some species quickly adapt to the kinds of disruption and decline we bring to biological complexity, but it seems that we're moving far too fast for systems to adapt intact. It's never been a question of the natural world disappearing. It's about losing the incredibly rich and complex array of life that is the product of a timespan far beyond ours.
Jason, you are the maestro of words. I'm honored to be mentioned, even if it is part of a refutation, or expansion, of what I claimed in my piece. This is a conversation and I'm glad to be part of it. I don't know any other science writer who is able to capture these concepts not just clearly but poetically.
Something that's been on my mind regarding recent news: How can we explain tipping points or ocean acidification to everyday citizens and connect them to actions they are taking or not taking? People care about these things but don't understand when the words get so complex. Most of the news just leaves people frightened. They are tuning out.
Thank you, Amanda. You're very much part of the conversation, and doing good work.
As for communicating tipping points or acidification in broader ways than what we're doing in our corner here, it's tough. Not only because of the complexity, but because of the pretty unavoidable doomsaying that underlies it. It's hard to put a bright-side context on the AMOC slowing down or the Amazon becoming a CO2 emitter or the weakening of diatom shells in a more acidic sea, when none of those things has a visible turnaround on any human timescale. I suppose the best we can do is explain those dark clouds in the clearest possible language and then tie it to all that can be done to reduce their likelihood. Which, now that I say it, sounds like a scare tactic... So other than simply pushing more palatable messages about things more easily understood and fixed, I suppose we have to write beautifully about how the real world works and the consequence of our actions, both good and bad.
That's an off-the-cuff answer to a good question.
Outstanding and important article, Jason. Thank you
But afraid I still see this from this perspective "but even as small bulwarks for frogs, bees, lemurs, and corals are maintained, whole continents and oceans are still being transformed" because our work is looking at how the slow but sure impact on humans may play out (in generations, of course.)
Thank you, Elba. And as the essay makes clear, I think, I understand the need to keep the long-term perspective. Maybe Jane Goodall is right, though, to insist on highlighting the small bulwarks while keeping both eyes on the looming clouds.
I appreciate your mention of my words on hope, especially in the company of Jane Goodall’s hope in action. Thanks for your brilliant work in brining us a balanced view of things. ⭐️
I think you fit in nicely with Jane, Julie. I was happy to have that St. Francis post come in as I was putting this together. Thank you.
Holy. Holy. Holy.
Jason, you just gifted the bridge for my draft about trout I witnessed in a conservation stream and a heated community meeting concerning pausing hurricane reconstruction.
Merci.
This essay is one of the many whys I am one of your Founding members.🌿
Gifts for gifts, Katharine. I cannot thank you enough for your kind and generous support. Say hello to your trout for me.