> Personally, I think opinions that match ideologies you're really opposed to probably leave a bigger impression than the ones you agree with. It's easy to come to the conclusion that you're in the minority when you're really not.

That's a good point.

> I believe there are a lot of social conservatives on HN, but the same people are not necessarily technologically or scientifically conservative. This doesn't fall cleanly into left and right by US standards, but I think it's a reasonable model of HN majority predisposition.

I'm not sure what you mean by socially conservative vs. scientifically and technologically.

> Well, I thought I was taking it as literally as possible. When you said "But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault.", I got the impression that you're asserting the only reason why we correlate extinctions with human activity is because we want to blame humans.

I think there are some people who definitely do want to blame humans, for different reasons. At the conspiratorial end of the spectrum, there's population control purposes (cf. blumkvist's comments about increasing automation). At the more personal end of the spectrum, there are things like those whose careers are already invested into declaring that humans are at fault.

So when you say "we," I think you're glossing over a significant issue, that of different groups with different motivations.

> However, what's actually going on is more a collection of thousands of observations about these events, made on a case by case basis. For example, these are observations about human settlements impacting wildlife. In another area, they might be data about the results of us restructuring local flora and fauna. Or they might be analytical results pointing to correlations between human-induced contamination of water bodies and changes in the biome that characteristically follow it. It's literally a mass of thousands of data points.

Sure, no doubt some of these researchers have compiled massive amounts of data. But even if you take their historical data at face value, it does not necessarily follow that these small-scale human impacts on the environment will cause mass extinctions. The gulf between the two is enormous.

> A lot of groups are proclaiming that the opposing organizations have money and power on their side. The environmental protection movement makes the same assertion, only about letting industry and agriculture go unchecked.

Certainly, there are huge amounts of money being spent lobbying on both sides of the issue. It's not as if one side or the other is altruistic. In fact, I think that's the point that needs to be emphasized, perhaps above all else: these are less scientific issues than social and political ones. Science is being used as a vehicle to push certain agendas. It's fine to consider the science and the potential ramifications, but we absolutely must continue examining the people and agendas that are pushing certain conclusions. If we don't, we will have the wool pulled over our eyes, and possibly lead off a cliff.

> You say that you believe any such efforts will harm people, but to be honest I find that line of reasoning difficult to follow, especially considering the fact that we're mortally dependent on the integrity of our biosphere and that the measures we're putting in place are generally very modest.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying we should go around killing and burning and polluting and destroying willy-nilly. I think we should be good stewards of the planet and all of its resources, both living and non-living.

But I don't think we should put "biodiversity" above human life. The policies that are often proposed would result in real harm to real people right now. And the people pushing them either don't value human life, or they value their own (and their own wealth/power) above everyone else's. And that's dangerous.