zlacker

And what about the species that do not warm nor thrive in tropical climates? Or those that cannot migrate? Even if some species increase in numbers, it still means that all other species would get lost, reducing biodiversity and effectively meaning an extinction-level event.

>>petemi+(OP)
> ...all other species would get lost, reducing biodiversity and effectively meaning an extinction-level event.

Reducing biodiversity doesn't equate to an extension-level event though. It also doesn't mean all species who didn't thrive would be lost - many would be affected but not existentially so.

I'm reminded of George Carlin's joke about the planet being fine long-term, we're the ones who will be screwed.

>>bavell+w4
> Reducing biodiversity doesn't equate to an extension-level event though

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica [0]: __These conspicuous declines in diversity are referred to as mass extinctions__

> It also doesn't mean all species who didn't thrive would be lost - many would be affected but not existentially so.

But this is not a fact, it is a conjecture. On the other hand, we do have declining numbers of a big number of species. Unless the tendency reverts, constant long-term declining numbers will be an existential threat.

> I'm reminded of George Carlin's joke about the planet being fine long-term, we're the ones who will be screwed.

That's true, for sure. But asides from "the planet" and "we", there are also all the others.