It really depends on the level of danger/cascade we mean here, because several ecosystems already have shifted into states that no longer provide resources which people depended on for their livelihoods.
Here are my reasons for x-risk skepticism: Life rapidly takes advantage of open opportunities and is built to do that. Evolution takes place on long timescales and (I think) has some selected-for resilience for 99.9th worst case scenarios. The earth has had 96% of life wiped out and still had large animals make it out. I can’t think of an ecosystem that took down adjacent ecosystems with it. I also can’t think of cases where an area was transformed into a totally lifeless ecosystem (except chemical spills). To the contrary, I see decimation and “recovery” into ecosystems adapted to decimation. My current model is that ecosystems degrade gradually and its a very very low point when individual species are necessary for survival and sudden collapse is a potential threat. I think we are far from that being the norm.
This is all concerning worst-case bottoming out or cascadelike patterns. I think there is a lot of space in-between here and oblivion worth addressing. And on the positive end, biodiversity and ecosystems seem to give high return value and stability vital for civilization and flourishing. Hence I still think biodiversity has lots of value, both now and in the future without it being a source of dire xrisk.
*this still is my own perspective and doesn’t represent the other people also interested in biodiversity as a cause area.
It really depends on the level of danger/cascade we mean here, because several ecosystems already have shifted into states that no longer provide resources which people depended on for their livelihoods.
Here are my reasons for x-risk skepticism:
Life rapidly takes advantage of open opportunities and is built to do that. Evolution takes place on long timescales and (I think) has some selected-for resilience for 99.9th worst case scenarios. The earth has had 96% of life wiped out and still had large animals make it out. I can’t think of an ecosystem that took down adjacent ecosystems with it. I also can’t think of cases where an area was transformed into a totally lifeless ecosystem (except chemical spills). To the contrary, I see decimation and “recovery” into ecosystems adapted to decimation. My current model is that ecosystems degrade gradually and its a very very low point when individual species are necessary for survival and sudden collapse is a potential threat. I think we are far from that being the norm.
This is all concerning worst-case bottoming out or cascadelike patterns. I think there is a lot of space in-between here and oblivion worth addressing. And on the positive end, biodiversity and ecosystems seem to give high return value and stability vital for civilization and flourishing. Hence I still think biodiversity has lots of value, both now and in the future without it being a source of dire xrisk.
*this still is my own perspective and doesn’t represent the other people also interested in biodiversity as a cause area.