Could you run for 100 hours this year? How about doing a little more than 15 minutes a day? In fact, these objectives are essentially equivalent, but one certainly seems more ambitious than the other.
Correct framing is therefore important when defining an objective. Avoid a sixth mass extinction. It seems really difficult. Mass extinctions are devastating events – there is no precise definition, but these are largely understood as leading to the loss of around 75% of all species on earth in at least several thousand years. And yet, some people maintain that stopping one is easy.
Indeed, although humanity has certainly caused a loss of catastrophic biodiversity, even if the extinction rates remain as high as they are today, we would need centuries to eliminate three -quarters of species.
According to John Wiens of the University of Arizona (see “there is more and more evidence that the mass extinctions of Big Five have never taken place”) and others, avoiding an extinction of manual could still be devastating. “We could lose half of the species on the planet in the next 3000 years and still say:” Yes, we have done it! ” We have prevented the sixth mass extinction, ”he says.
We could lose half of all species in the next 3000 years and still say: “Yes, we have done it!”
Instead, he maintains that we must aim to prevent the extinction induced by man from hitting 0.2% of the species – far from the 75% necessary to qualify for mass extinction, and the equivalent of strengthening this annual target from 100 hours to more than 100 hours per day, which would certainly be a challenge.
The target of Wiens is far from impossible – simply very difficult – and its questioning of the framing of the “sixth extinction of mass” is an attempt to focus on the conservation of vulnerable species today, rather than centuries from now.
But the approach is not without controversy; His interrogation of the definition of mass extinction could be seen by some to undermine the argument that we are confronted now. So should we stay with the label? It would undoubtedly be the easy choice. But by highlighting their concerns, wiens and colleagues have chosen the most difficult -and perhaps better option -.
Subjects:
