zlacker

Sorry, I mean that the biodiversity loss is a mass extinction. We have lost 2/3 of trees, 2/3 of mammals and 2/3 of insects, that's a fact. It will continue (because we are not changing anything) and that is not a consequence of climate change. Climate change will just make it worse.

It is a consequence of how we live, including habitat loss, pollution, etc. Nuclear fusion (which almost surely won't happen in a useful timeline) is not a solution to our biodiversity problem, only to our climate problem. But if we could today do nuclear fusion in our smartphones, we would still be in a mass extinction. So we need to change more than just CO2 emissions (unless we don't care about biodiversity, but I do).

>>palata+(OP)
Not that I disagree with much of this, but is there a hypothesis as to what exactly we're doing that's causing the biodiversity collapse if not for the altered atmosphere, climate chaos, and heating (which seems to be implied)? Do they suspect that it primarily from the land/chemical/pesticide (ab)use or something else?

>>panarc+nZ4
Not an expert, but I think it's a mix of pollution, pesticides, habitat loss, intensive fishing, etc.

When we have energy, we just transform the world to optimize some metric (profit, comfort, etc), and transforming wild places just breaks balance and makes species disappear.

>>palata+(OP)
In addition, even selfish people should care about loss of biodiversity if only because it facilitates disease transmission, and so is a threat to food security and public health.