Fiona, Atrout says "you are advocating the reduction in extinction rates at a huge cost to limited resources." I don't really understand his/her logic, as you could call rare or endangered species extremely limited resources, which we at risk of losing entirely. At this stage we have don't really understand how these losses will impact the natural environment, or indeed how these organisms may benefit humankind in the future - through biotechnology or simply the joy of them being there.
I don't know about atrout, but for me I think the world would be a more 'emo', sadder, less beautiful and definitely less happy and wealthy place to live if many species became extinct.

Fiona, you are advocating the reduction in extinction rates at a huge cost to limited resources. Using statements like not since a single meteor stirke 65,000,000 years ago... what has that got to do with anything in the present??? There could have been two meteor strikes or none!! The luck of the universal lottery. Let's get off the emotional overload and talk about more important issues such as developing refined and event sensitive environmental management strategies. WHo would dispute that we need to put enormous resources into improving the use of natural resources and the reduction of wasteful end use??? I would argue that any deployment of resources to save species is patently irresponsible. I feel that this is dinosaur thinking- no pun intended. We should instead do what we can in changing the mindset of our political environment where a desirable lifestyle is one that provides health, relative wealth and definitely, happiness in a context of sustainability. Get off the bandwagons of saving endangered species and instead directing our energies and interest in making the planet a better, less emo place to live.

Although there can be debate over the language used to convey the message, the science is clear. The Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 report is based on scientific assessment and national reports, and was subject to peer review by external independent scientists. The published literature in scientific journals also supports the findings, and is also peer reviewed. The report is open-access and can be downloaded online. Through universities you can also access peer reviewed scientific journals such as Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences, Biodiversity and Conservation. All of which in the last six months have reviews, where scientific research in the field is pooled and general conclusions are drawn, on the current extinction situation.

We skeptics all know how credible the United Nations is.. Spot all the alarmist keywords in this article! 'business as usual is not an option' 'tipping point' 'urgent action' 'things are dire'. Sound familiar?

It's not good news, and I don't believe humankind currently has the will to do anything about it - seriously. Serious action is required, and it is required yesterday. The green revolution needs to start if we want to do anything about it. It is not just a matter of turning off the tap while brushing our teeth or putting out the recycling. Real changes will require sacrifice. It will hurt. People will not want to change that much. The extinction rate will not slow down until we make huge sacrifices and make them globally. I am 29. I don't see the necessary changes happening in my life time unless something dramatic and global changes everything. I am not holding my pessimistic breath.