As I was aware the "anti-Pyron article" will be published soon in NY Times.

I do not claim expertise on this topic, but I may be able to shed some light on your question. Dr. Pyron appears to be talking in general about how life and evolution work to both adapt and fill in available supply of resources. That is, extinctions have happened a lot in the past due to a range of causes: changes to the environment, rapid changes such as catastrophies (volcanoes, meteors), predation to extinction (which may also result in extinction of the predator if no alternative food available), and even just standard evolution in which a species changes over eons, perhaps into multiple child species that are better adapted or are participating in genetic arms race with other organisms.

One of the species that has caused the extinction of some other species, whether by predation or changing their environments, is humans. When the cause is humans, we tend to cause that "artificial", meaning that we abstract our own cognitively controlled actions out of "nature", meaning that we have the capacity to make conscious decisions that can lead to extinction of another species or not, depending on what we decide. This is somewhat different from other causes as none of them are generally consciously aware that they are causing the extinction and don't have the capacity or luxury to make decisions based on what they predict will happen to another species by certain actions they take. We humans are alone in that capacity.

His main point appears to be that there isn't a way life is supposed to exist on Earth, so there is no "ought" premise by which we should be acting to make our decisions. He argues that the only real "ought" that matters is the effect our decisions have on humans in the long run, as genes that select for their own continuation will necessarily be the ones that survive and reproduce, so that is a feature built into living beings for the survival of their genes. He criticizes the idea that we "ought" to keep things the way they are by minimizing environmental impacts, maintaining biodiversity, and saving endangered species, and even seems to suggest ignoring climate change since things have changed even significantly more in the past and life just adapts and rebounds to fit the new environment.

In my opinion, while his basic principles seem sound about the idea that "ought" statements require justification, and that things change over time regardless of humans and there's nothing wrong with that, he leaps over the important parts of the discussion to reach invalid conclusions. For one, he misses that the rate of change is an important factor, particularly if we're even talking just about the survival and success of the human species. Yes, the sea level changed a lot in the past. But that doesn't mean it is irrelevant to us now, today. If the sea level rises 1 meter over the next 10,000 years (0.1 mm/year), that will have little impact on our civilization or the human species. Our lifetimes are on the order of 100 years, and our buildings and infrastructure have lifetimes of a similar order, from decades to centuries. A change in sea level of 1 cm over 100 years will have little effect. The shallowest coastlines might see the sea move inward a few meters over that time, but most coastlines won't change much. The buildings will fall apart and be replace, perhaps moved back a few meters. Over hundreds of years, we can move whole cities inland piece by piece through attrition of aging infrastructure.

If the sea level rises 1 meter in 100 years (10 mm/year), that is a serious problem. In 100 years, that could mean the water comes inland hundreds of meters to kilometers further. A new house near the coastline might have to be torn down or moved over a few decades. Property will be lost. Storm surges will decimate coastlines. Some areas, like Miami, will have water come up through the ground and much of the city will be under shallow water year round. Some shallow nations like Bangladesh or islands like the Maldives will require mass migration over the short term.

Now I'm not claiming that it is increasing 1 meter in 100 years. Rather, I'm suggesting that the rate of change matters, and the ability and cost to adapt to those changes, not just the absolute sea level at different times.

That's just sea level. Other rapid changes to climate and weather patterns means significant changes in agriculture, storm destruction, heat waves, and to phenomena such as the gulf stream that provide stable and long-term predictable climate patterns that we are well adapted and prepared for. Rapid changes means our infrastructure, settlements, food supply, and ill-prepared for what will come, and we will see economic disaster.

Sure, if we have global economic collapse, mass migration, spreading disease, famine, increased disasters in our settlement locations, and resulting wars over location and resources, then life will still continue and evolve. But, it may be a massive loss to human civilization at great cost. The question is really about the benefit we gain vs the cost in the relatively near future. Is saving $1 today worth a debt costing $100 next year?

That is what Pyron is missing in his article, even if we limit the discussion to the effects on humans and human civilization, and in terms of what we "ought" to do in our own best interests. Getting into biodiversity discussions and the effects on other life can go a variety of ways, but isn't even necessary just to address problems in Pyron's article.

Extinction is part of evolution !!!!

Do not tell me that all human stupidity is part of evolution !!!!

41- Corruption has appeared on land and sea because of what the hands of people have earned, He thus lets them taste the consequences of their works that they may return. ( Quran -- 30- The Romans, 41)

Anyway with intelligence we can drive evolution where we want with humanity

Dear Azedine, please have a look at the attached image. I am contributing with two, I am not sure if this is a good indicator for stupidity. Having more than two maybe....

A short note regarding the question if human induced mass extinctions are artificial or natural.

"At its second meeting, held in Jakarta, November 1995, the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the ecosystem approach as the primary framework for action under the Convention. The Ecosystem Approach recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of ecosystems. This has been known for a long time, but it has yet to be internalized by the whole society to assure present and future human survival."

Source: Ibisch, P.L. & A. Vega E., T.M. Herrmann (eds.) 2010. Interdependence of biodiversity and development under global change. Technical Series No. 54. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal (second corrected edition).

PDF is attached

Cheers,

Robert