What Does Extinction Mean?

 

Trail at Bell Smith Springs in Southern Illinois

For some reason, many people don't appear to quite understand what extinction really means. Many people just completely ignore it altogether. I recall (in my younger years) seeing articles about extinction which highlighted different animals which were threatened. It wasn't until my experience with what the acronym NTHE (Near Term Human Extinction) stood for that I began to connect the dots on extinction with us humans. But even those who comprehend the symptom predicament of biodiversity decline rarely ever speak of precisely how it will affect us. Many people obviously "isolate" us into a species "above" the rest of nature (which is what we tend to be indoctrinated with), but really we are animals no differently than any other animal organism and we are nothing more than a part of nature. 

While I have left a broad spectrum of the description and meaning of extinction to the studies and links in this article, I wanted to tackle certain ideas that I often see when reading articles or watching videos about extinction and those implications about what extinction really means.

Finally, the mass extinction we are in the midst of is getting a bit of coverage in the MSM (MainStream Media). But even there, the idea that this is a problem rather than a predicament prevents most people from realizing that just because the word "problem" is used doesn't make it so. It's still a predicament with an outcome, which makes this statement (the very last sentence) pretty hilarious, quote: "Today, if the science is right, humanity may have to survive a sixth mass extinction in a world of its own making." 

Surviving a mass extinction is extremely unlikely, given the circumstances, and this study confirms that just temperature change alone can cause this. If one looks at the trajectory and views the rate of change, then one can see where most large organisms are slated for extinction. Of course, many people may not have enough knowledge of biology, which may be why such stunningingly ignorant comments emerge in the first place. Then again, our cultural programming does tend to discount such realities. Reassuring lies trump inconvenient truths in much of society today.

One of my main efforts over the past year or so with this blog has been to combine as many articles together as I can, so as to weave together a "picture" of what these predicaments look like and how they are all interconnected together. You've heard of "connecting the dots" together. My goal is to place the dots closely enough so that the average reader can connect them together. I tend to always find a missing segment that I think still needs to be explained and start yet another article to fill in the blank spot and then connect it to the others. There's always (at least) one more story that needs to be told, so it seems. Much of this comes from comments in groups and current events regarding different topics, and I think it adds a very necessary element to this blog. One comment in particular was critical of this practice of linking these articles together, but the commenter saw it as "self-promotion" rather than me providing a deeper explanation for a specific topic. Because I do delve into each topic much deeper (or try to, at least); when I happen to mention said topic in an article, I think it is helpful for someone who may not be familiar with my blog and/or writings and/or the science behind it all to link to the article dealing more specifically with said topic so that he or she can understand it more thoroughly. I appreciate comments like this so I can highlight them in future articles and explain why I do these things. While we are on the subject of comments, I'm really not interested in arguing with commenters. If you have a belief that differs from my knowledge, so be it. Beliefs are not facts and I'm inclined to ignore most such comments. On the other hand, if you come into the comments armed with facts such as peer-reviewed scientific studies or similar proof of your argument, I may actually entertain the comment. I'm not always correct in my understanding and if you think I'm wrong and are willing to prove it, then I am willing to correct myself if the evidence warrants it. 

Coming back to extinction, the reason why so many people think we will go through a bottleneck is due to several reasons (see also here and here). Most of it has to do with sheer ignorance, a large portion has to do with denial of reality and optimism bias, and for those who actually comprehend fully the risk of extinction, many think that reduced population will provide for a rise in carrying capacity which will allow for a resurgence or stabilization in population. One study in particular actually models this which shows that said stabilization in population is actually precisely what causes the complete extinction of our species. Of course, this is just a model. Still, the associated article about this study gives some rather interesting details as to why civilizations fail. This is due to extinction cascades, co-extinctions, and/or trophic cascades, a loss of a keystone species provides for further changes along the chain of the food web, inducing reciprocal changes along the way. Because of the mass extinction our species has triggered, many species we unknowingly depend upon are going extinct, paving the way for our own extinction. But it isn't just the loss of other species which may actually be the primary cause of our own extinction. All the symptom predicaments of ecological overshoot are acting as risk multipliers, providing for a buffet of consequences that may be extremely difficult to predict (due to the exponential function of each predicament and the interactions between them as time moves forward). There's also the insidious predicament of what is being called the "silent mass extinction" in this article, detailing how genetic diversity is being lost due to habitat loss. In addition, it is important to note that mass extinctions are irreversible and once started, cannot be "stopped" or otherwise waved away.

So, in effect, one cannot just simply "wave away" extinction as a non-issue (well, OK, one can; but doing so changes nothing). Many people look for ideas on what to do, and for solace and peace, and of course, for "solutions" which in reality do not exist (but mitigation techniques to reduce ecological overshoot do exist). Many people mistakenly think that we have to ability to stop extinction. This is yet another prime example of the illusion of control. Another illusion many often suffer from is one of our species being "sustainable" or "living in harmony" with nature. These are really nothing more than romantic stories in reality. The bottom line with regard to extinction is this: as long as our goal is to extend the run of our own species and/or as long as our goal is to extend civilization, we are completely missing the point. Those two goals generally are precisely what got us to this point in time to begin with, so they can not and will not help move us into a new trajectory. Moving into a new trajectory requires reducing ecological overshoot, plain and simple. Nothing else will accomplish that goal of moving into a new trajectory - not reducing emissions, not becoming vegan, not regenerative agriculture, not a new civilization, not EVs and "renewable" energy, and not all the other gimmicks traditionally marketed as "solutions" to "save the planet" (and all of which ignore overshoot). While those ideas may be part of an overall strategy, the overall strategy itself MUST be to reduce ecological overshoot, otherwise we are treating symptoms of the real issue rather than the real issue itself.

This seems to be the key element that is missed in so many studies, articles, videos, and almost all other communication about environmental concerns such as climate change. As long as we continue focusing on symptoms rather than the root cause, all the other symptoms caused by said root cause will continue unabated. In addition, as long as we continue discussing these issues as if they are problems rather than the predicaments they really are, we are deluding ourselves or attempting to delude ourselves into thinking that these issues have solutions when they only have outcomes in reality and the best that we can do is mitigate or reduce the damage to the extent possible.  

I am constantly reminded of the cycle of life in all of this. Every species comes to a point where it is no longer viable and ends up going extinct or functionally extinct as a result. Many people initially see human extinction from a rather anthropocentric perspective and tend to ignore how other species or nature might view our extinction. Especially those of us (most anyone who can read this) immersed in Western civilization, it is important to zoom out and look at the situation from a more holistic manner. If one looks at it from a geologic standpoint, it becomes much easier to accept the predicaments we collectively have put in motion.

So, while extinction is far more serious than many people give it credit for, far more advanced along its trajectory than most people give it credit for, and far more intractable than almost everybody gives it credit for, we still need to Live Now to remain sane and enjoy the miracle of life we've been given while we still can.