logo
Are we in a sixth mass extinction?

Are we in a sixth mass extinction?

Yahoo3 days ago

Around 66 million years ago, a six-mile-wide asteroid hit Earth, triggering the extinction of three-quarters of all living species. The age of dinosaurs, which had lasted 165 million years, ended with a fiery crash and suddenly sooty skies.
Farther back in our planet's history, volcanic eruptions, rapid climate change, and plummeting oxygen levels have caused at least four additional mass extinctions, with smaller pulses of biodiversity loss also showing up in the fossil record. In each of the five largest events, which spanned anywhere from thousands to tens of millions of years, at least 75 percent of Earth's species died out. These are the most commonly agreed upon major mass extinctions in paleontology.
You've also likely heard about a sixth one. Many ecologists and biologists say we're on the precipice (or already in the midst) of another era of mass extinction. This sixth mass extinction, also referred to as the Holocene or Anthropocene extinction, is described as ongoing and caused by human activities. Hunting, overfishing, habitat destruction, human encroachment, and invasive species introductions are the major drivers of the losses incurred thus far. Human-caused climate change is also set to become another factor, as decades of rising temperatures, shifting precipitation patterns, and increasingly extreme weather catch up to already stressed ecosystems.
It's indisputable that humans shape life on Earth in major ways, and that animals and plants are dying out at an alarming rate. But is it true that our impact is on par with that of an asteroid? Not all scientists agree.
There is no question that Earth is losing species fast. 'Biodiversity crisis is a pretty accurate term' to describe the present moment, says John Wiens, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of Arizona. 'Extinction crisis' is another, he adds, 'based on the large number of species that are threatened with extinction.'
Five other experts that Popular Science corresponded with for this article all agree on this 'crisis' terminology. In comparison with background levels of extinction, all of our sources said that current extinction rates are much higher.
Extinction isn't always a sign of disaster. It's also a natural outcome of evolution. As species diverge, compete, and struggle to survive, not all of them make it long-term. Conditions on Earth shift over geologic time, and those forces inevitably lead to some dead ends on the tree of life.
[ Related: Earth's 5 catastrophic mass extinctions, explained. ]
However, throughout most of our planet's history, the rate of new species emerging has exceeded the rate of species dying out, says Gerardo Ceballos, an ecologist and conservation biologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Thus, biodiversity normally exists in a positive balance.
Currently, we're losing species far faster than new ones emerge. Present extinction rates are up to 100 times faster than background levels, according to one 2015 study co-authored by Ceballos. In that analysis, Ceballos and his colleagues estimated the natural vertebrate extinction rate sits at around two species lost per 10,000 species each century. Then, they compared that statistic with the number of confirmed and likely extinctions recorded on the International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. They determined that, even using conservative numbers, the extinction rate for every vertebrate group was between eight and 100 times the background rate. The species losses incurred in the past 100 years would have taken thousands of years to occur naturally, per the assessment.
Other counts find the current rate of extinction is even higher. One often cited 2014 study concluded Earth is losing species 1,000 times faster than natural background rates. That analysis also reported the level of loss is poised to accelerate to 10,000 times the background rate in the near future.
These numbers vary widely in large part because the estimates of background extinction rates are difficult to pin down. The fossil record is incomplete, so scientists generally rely on mathematical models and reconstructions of the past to determine what was once alive and when it died out. Small shifts in starting assumptions can lead to major changes in the final calculations. The time period you're calculating average extinction rate over and types of organisms you're assessing also impact the result. This same ambiguity in estimating extinction rate persists in the present.
Though Wiens describes our moment as a biodiversity crisis, he doesn't believe it meets the bar for a sixth mass extinction. 'No one has provided a quantitative analysis that has really shown that,' he says.
If the top five major mass extinctions in the paleontological record each killed off at least 75 percent of species at the time, then the sixth one should theoretically cross the same threshold. Yet so far, the IUCN has confirmed fewer than 1,000 extinctions from the past 500 years–just about 0.1 percent of all known species, according to an analysis co-authored by Wiens in April.
We have not catalogued every living species, and the IUCN is far from having assessed all known species. The IUCN database is also biased, skewing towards large, charismatic vertebrates and wealthy regions like North America. The criteria for extinction are strict, requiring extensive surveys, and yet sometimes species reappear after being declared gone forever. Still, the IUCN dataset is among the best windows we have into the state of life on Earth, and it suggests there's a way to go before three quarters of species are gone.
[ Related: Earth's 'Great Dying' killed 80-90% of life. How some amphibians survived. ]
However, it's worth noting that other assessments estimate a much higher proportion of species have already disappeared. One 2022 paper, which extrapolated extinction rates from data on mollusks, found that upwards of 10 percent of all species may have gone extinct in the past 500 years.
And, those like Ceballos who argue a major mass extinction has already begun, point to calculations that indicate we could reach that grim, 75 percent mile marker in just a few centuries. If all IUCN threatened species went extinct in the next 100 years, and that rate of species loss continued, Earth would surpass 75 percent loss of species across most vertebrate animal groups in under 550 years, according to a landmark 2011 review paper. This study published in Nature, remains among the most thorough quantitative assessments of extinction trends.
Yet to write every threatened species off as doomed to imminent extinction would be a mistake, says Stuart Pimm, a conservation biologist at Duke University and president of the conservation non-profit, Saving Nature.
'We have no idea what the future is,' he says. And, in the meantime, 'there's a lot of things we can do.' Pimm points to conservation success stories like the rebound of certain baleen whale populations and the stabilization of savanna elephant numbers over the past 25 years. He worries that claims about the sixth extinction might leave the public resigned to what might otherwise be a preventable catastrophe.
'It's not inevitable,' Pimm says.
From the paleontological perspective, mass extinctions are something that can only be definitively confirmed in the past tense. They are defined based on the proportion of species that existed before, but not after a cataclysmic event like a major asteroid strike. If there's not yet an after, it's impossible to say for sure what number of lineages died out. There are no crystal balls in science. And in that uncertainty, there's room for hope that we could stop species from sliding off the cliff.
But nearly half of all animals are losing population worldwide, according to a 2023 estimate, based on trend data for more than 71,000 species. Barring exceptional levels of investment and intervention, lots of species are already doomed to extinction, says Sarah Otto, an evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia. 'Many of the extinctions we think that humans are causing haven't actually happened yet. These are the 'living dead' species whose population sizes are small, whose habitats are fragmented,' she explains. 'There's a lot of extinction debt.'
[ Related: An 'ancestral bottleneck' took out nearly 99 percent of the human population 800,000 years ago. ]
A 2020 report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) found that an average of 25 percent of species across animal and plant groups are threatened with extinction within decades, and that the human impacts to blame are intensifying. Without preventative action, as species disappear, 'there will be a further acceleration in the global rate of species extinction,' the report authors write.
Species depend on one another for survival, Otto notes. For example, in our acidifying and warming oceans, coral reefs are teetering on the brink. If they go, then the fate of the many species dependent on the infrastructure they provide is unclear. Major losses of marine life could then have knock-on effects on land.
Notably, the IPBES report doesn't directly consider the influence of climate change on future extinction rate. If it did, 'those projected numbers could really go up,' says Otto.Even under Wiens' comparatively rosy outlook, he still expects 12 to 40 percent species losses over the next century. And if species don't disappear across their entire ranges, local losses and population declines can still have major repercussions for ecosystem function and human society.
The 75 percent threshold is an arbitrary line, Otto notes. Lots can go wrong before we officially place sixth in the world's worst contest. Human impacts on biodiversity 'will be seen in the fossil record,' she says. 'Whether or not it's going to be up there in the top six is really a matter of what we do next.'
This story is part of Popular Science's Ask Us Anything series, where we answer your most outlandish, mind-burning questions, from the ordinary to the off-the-wall. Have something you've always wanted to know? Ask us.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

This Type of Fiber Could Have Weight Loss Benefits Similar to Ozempic
This Type of Fiber Could Have Weight Loss Benefits Similar to Ozempic

Yahoo

timea day ago

  • Yahoo

This Type of Fiber Could Have Weight Loss Benefits Similar to Ozempic

Research on the microbes living in our digestive tract has triggered a 'revolution' in nutritional science. In the last few years, dietary fiber has become the "new protein", leading to it being added to foods in abundance to feed our gut's microbiome and boost our health. However, a study on mice published in 2024 suggests not all fiber supplements are equally beneficial. A form that is readily found in oats and barley, called beta-glucan, can control blood sugar and assist in weight loss among mice fed a high-fat diet. According to researchers at the University of Arizona (UA) and the University of Vienna it was the only type of fiber supplement they tested that decreased a mouse's fat content and body weight within 18 weeks. Other fibers they considered, including wheat dextrin, pectin, resistant starch, and cellulose, had no such effect, despite shifting the makeup of the mouse microbiome significantly compared to mice fed no fiber supplements. "We know that fiber is important and beneficial; the problem is that there are so many different types of fiber," explained biomedical scientist Frank Duca from UA in July. "We wanted to know what kind of fiber would be most beneficial for weight loss and improvements in glucose homeostasis so that we can inform the community, the consumer, and then also inform the agricultural industry." Dietary fibers are the main source of energy for bacteria living in our guts, and yet less than 5 percent of people in the US consume the recommended 25–30 grams (0.9–1 ounce) of fiber a day. To make up for this, fiber supplements and 'invisible fiber'-infused foods are growing in popularity. But fibers are extremely diverse, so which do we choose? Some fibers, like oat beta-glucans and wheat dextrin, are water-soluble, meaning they are easily fermented by gut bacteria. Others, like cellulose and resistant starch, are less soluble or insoluble, meaning they stick to other materials to form stool. Until now, writes biomedical scientist Elizabeth Howard from UA and her colleagues, "there is no study that has investigated the role of various fibers in one cohort." To make up for this, the current study tested several forms of fiber in one cohort of mice. Only beta-glucan was found to increase the number of Ileibacterium found in the mouse intestine. Other studies on mice have linked this bacterium to weight loss. Sure enough, long before the 10-week marker, mice fed beta-glucan showed reduced body weight and body fat content compared to mice fed other forms of fiber. The findings align with another recent study by Duca, which fed barley flour, rich in beta-glucan, to rodents. Even though the rats continued eating just as much of their high-fat diet as before, their energy expenditure increased and they lost weight anyway. A similar outcome was observed in mice fed beta-glucan in the new study. These animals also showed increased concentrations of butyrate in their guts, which is a metabolite made when microbes break down fiber. Butyrate induces the release of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), which is the natural protein that synthetic drugs like Ozempic mimic to stimulate insulin release. "Part of the benefits of consuming dietary fiber is through the release of GLP-1 and other gut peptides that regulate appetite and body weight," said Duca. "However, we don't think that's all of the effect. We think that there are other beneficial things that butyrate could be doing that are not gut peptide related, such as improving gut barrier health and targeting peripheral organs like the liver." Far more research is needed before these results can be extended to humans, but the findings suggest that some fibers may be better suited to weight loss and insulin control than others. The study was published in the Journal of Nutrition. An earlier version of this article was published in July 2024. Study Reveals Plague's Evolutionary Hack to Survive 3 Pandemics One Key Way of Consuming Sugar Could Spike Your Diabetes Risk Parasite Infecting Up to 50% of People Can Decapitate Human Sperm

Archaeolgists Make Surprising Discovery About Ice Age Hunting Tools
Archaeolgists Make Surprising Discovery About Ice Age Hunting Tools

Yahoo

time3 days ago

  • Yahoo

Archaeolgists Make Surprising Discovery About Ice Age Hunting Tools

A recent study published in Nature Communications has found the first-known evidence of human beings manufacturing tools out of whale bones. Throughout 26 rock shelters and caves within northern Spain and southwestern France, researchers found 173 bone specimens, including 83 tools and 90 fragments. An analysis using Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry (ZooMS) found that 131 of those specimens were whale bones belonging to sperm whales, gray whales, blue whales, fin whales, and right or bowhead whales.'Our study reveals that the bones came from at least five species of large whales, the oldest of which date to approximately 19,000–20,000 years ago,' lead author Jean-Marc Pétillon said in a press release. 'These represent some of the earliest known evidence of humans using whale remains as tools.' The bones bear little sign of water wear, which means they were likely harvested from animals which had washed up on the shore rather than deep-sea hunting. Many of the tools were dated between 17,500 and 16,000 years ago, though the oldest specimen found dates back 20,000 years. In particular, the bones of sperm whales were found to be particularly popular in fashioning spears and other hunting instruments. Over 40 percent of projectile points and 73 percent of foreshafts analyzed were created from sperm whale bones.'What was more surprising to me, as an archaeologist more accustomed to terrestrial faunas, was that these whale species remained the same despite the great environmental difference between the Late Pleistocene and today,' Pétillon told Popular Science. 'In the same period, continental faunas are very different: the ungulates hunted include reindeer, saiga antelopes, bison, etc., all disappeared from Western Europe today.'Pétillon believes ancient people came from far and wide to scavenge whale bones and other parts when they washed up on shore. With further research, he and his team hope to deduce why tools constructed from whale bone declined so rapidly 16,000 years ago. 'The news of a stranding travels fast first, because it smells a lot [from a] long distance away, so people would concentrate from quite far,' Pétillon told New Scientist. 'So, it might not have been the main driver of people going to the seashore, but when that happened, it probably had an influence on the movement of the people who probably changed their planned pattern of movement to go there.'Archaeolgists Make Surprising Discovery About Ice Age Hunting Tools first appeared on Men's Journal on May 30, 2025

Are we in a sixth mass extinction?
Are we in a sixth mass extinction?

Yahoo

time3 days ago

  • Yahoo

Are we in a sixth mass extinction?

Around 66 million years ago, a six-mile-wide asteroid hit Earth, triggering the extinction of three-quarters of all living species. The age of dinosaurs, which had lasted 165 million years, ended with a fiery crash and suddenly sooty skies. Farther back in our planet's history, volcanic eruptions, rapid climate change, and plummeting oxygen levels have caused at least four additional mass extinctions, with smaller pulses of biodiversity loss also showing up in the fossil record. In each of the five largest events, which spanned anywhere from thousands to tens of millions of years, at least 75 percent of Earth's species died out. These are the most commonly agreed upon major mass extinctions in paleontology. You've also likely heard about a sixth one. Many ecologists and biologists say we're on the precipice (or already in the midst) of another era of mass extinction. This sixth mass extinction, also referred to as the Holocene or Anthropocene extinction, is described as ongoing and caused by human activities. Hunting, overfishing, habitat destruction, human encroachment, and invasive species introductions are the major drivers of the losses incurred thus far. Human-caused climate change is also set to become another factor, as decades of rising temperatures, shifting precipitation patterns, and increasingly extreme weather catch up to already stressed ecosystems. It's indisputable that humans shape life on Earth in major ways, and that animals and plants are dying out at an alarming rate. But is it true that our impact is on par with that of an asteroid? Not all scientists agree. There is no question that Earth is losing species fast. 'Biodiversity crisis is a pretty accurate term' to describe the present moment, says John Wiens, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of Arizona. 'Extinction crisis' is another, he adds, 'based on the large number of species that are threatened with extinction.' Five other experts that Popular Science corresponded with for this article all agree on this 'crisis' terminology. In comparison with background levels of extinction, all of our sources said that current extinction rates are much higher. Extinction isn't always a sign of disaster. It's also a natural outcome of evolution. As species diverge, compete, and struggle to survive, not all of them make it long-term. Conditions on Earth shift over geologic time, and those forces inevitably lead to some dead ends on the tree of life. [ Related: Earth's 5 catastrophic mass extinctions, explained. ] However, throughout most of our planet's history, the rate of new species emerging has exceeded the rate of species dying out, says Gerardo Ceballos, an ecologist and conservation biologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Thus, biodiversity normally exists in a positive balance. Currently, we're losing species far faster than new ones emerge. Present extinction rates are up to 100 times faster than background levels, according to one 2015 study co-authored by Ceballos. In that analysis, Ceballos and his colleagues estimated the natural vertebrate extinction rate sits at around two species lost per 10,000 species each century. Then, they compared that statistic with the number of confirmed and likely extinctions recorded on the International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. They determined that, even using conservative numbers, the extinction rate for every vertebrate group was between eight and 100 times the background rate. The species losses incurred in the past 100 years would have taken thousands of years to occur naturally, per the assessment. Other counts find the current rate of extinction is even higher. One often cited 2014 study concluded Earth is losing species 1,000 times faster than natural background rates. That analysis also reported the level of loss is poised to accelerate to 10,000 times the background rate in the near future. These numbers vary widely in large part because the estimates of background extinction rates are difficult to pin down. The fossil record is incomplete, so scientists generally rely on mathematical models and reconstructions of the past to determine what was once alive and when it died out. Small shifts in starting assumptions can lead to major changes in the final calculations. The time period you're calculating average extinction rate over and types of organisms you're assessing also impact the result. This same ambiguity in estimating extinction rate persists in the present. Though Wiens describes our moment as a biodiversity crisis, he doesn't believe it meets the bar for a sixth mass extinction. 'No one has provided a quantitative analysis that has really shown that,' he says. If the top five major mass extinctions in the paleontological record each killed off at least 75 percent of species at the time, then the sixth one should theoretically cross the same threshold. Yet so far, the IUCN has confirmed fewer than 1,000 extinctions from the past 500 years–just about 0.1 percent of all known species, according to an analysis co-authored by Wiens in April. We have not catalogued every living species, and the IUCN is far from having assessed all known species. The IUCN database is also biased, skewing towards large, charismatic vertebrates and wealthy regions like North America. The criteria for extinction are strict, requiring extensive surveys, and yet sometimes species reappear after being declared gone forever. Still, the IUCN dataset is among the best windows we have into the state of life on Earth, and it suggests there's a way to go before three quarters of species are gone. [ Related: Earth's 'Great Dying' killed 80-90% of life. How some amphibians survived. ] However, it's worth noting that other assessments estimate a much higher proportion of species have already disappeared. One 2022 paper, which extrapolated extinction rates from data on mollusks, found that upwards of 10 percent of all species may have gone extinct in the past 500 years. And, those like Ceballos who argue a major mass extinction has already begun, point to calculations that indicate we could reach that grim, 75 percent mile marker in just a few centuries. If all IUCN threatened species went extinct in the next 100 years, and that rate of species loss continued, Earth would surpass 75 percent loss of species across most vertebrate animal groups in under 550 years, according to a landmark 2011 review paper. This study published in Nature, remains among the most thorough quantitative assessments of extinction trends. Yet to write every threatened species off as doomed to imminent extinction would be a mistake, says Stuart Pimm, a conservation biologist at Duke University and president of the conservation non-profit, Saving Nature. 'We have no idea what the future is,' he says. And, in the meantime, 'there's a lot of things we can do.' Pimm points to conservation success stories like the rebound of certain baleen whale populations and the stabilization of savanna elephant numbers over the past 25 years. He worries that claims about the sixth extinction might leave the public resigned to what might otherwise be a preventable catastrophe. 'It's not inevitable,' Pimm says. From the paleontological perspective, mass extinctions are something that can only be definitively confirmed in the past tense. They are defined based on the proportion of species that existed before, but not after a cataclysmic event like a major asteroid strike. If there's not yet an after, it's impossible to say for sure what number of lineages died out. There are no crystal balls in science. And in that uncertainty, there's room for hope that we could stop species from sliding off the cliff. But nearly half of all animals are losing population worldwide, according to a 2023 estimate, based on trend data for more than 71,000 species. Barring exceptional levels of investment and intervention, lots of species are already doomed to extinction, says Sarah Otto, an evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia. 'Many of the extinctions we think that humans are causing haven't actually happened yet. These are the 'living dead' species whose population sizes are small, whose habitats are fragmented,' she explains. 'There's a lot of extinction debt.' [ Related: An 'ancestral bottleneck' took out nearly 99 percent of the human population 800,000 years ago. ] A 2020 report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) found that an average of 25 percent of species across animal and plant groups are threatened with extinction within decades, and that the human impacts to blame are intensifying. Without preventative action, as species disappear, 'there will be a further acceleration in the global rate of species extinction,' the report authors write. Species depend on one another for survival, Otto notes. For example, in our acidifying and warming oceans, coral reefs are teetering on the brink. If they go, then the fate of the many species dependent on the infrastructure they provide is unclear. Major losses of marine life could then have knock-on effects on land. Notably, the IPBES report doesn't directly consider the influence of climate change on future extinction rate. If it did, 'those projected numbers could really go up,' says under Wiens' comparatively rosy outlook, he still expects 12 to 40 percent species losses over the next century. And if species don't disappear across their entire ranges, local losses and population declines can still have major repercussions for ecosystem function and human society. The 75 percent threshold is an arbitrary line, Otto notes. Lots can go wrong before we officially place sixth in the world's worst contest. Human impacts on biodiversity 'will be seen in the fossil record,' she says. 'Whether or not it's going to be up there in the top six is really a matter of what we do next.' This story is part of Popular Science's Ask Us Anything series, where we answer your most outlandish, mind-burning questions, from the ordinary to the off-the-wall. Have something you've always wanted to know? Ask us.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store