Better to try to solve the problem, even if the solution is not perfect, rather than putting our heads in the sand.

That's one way to get biodiversity, but you can also generate more diverse populations in the lab and plant them in the field. You can also seek out natural reservoirs of variation in the form of wild or land race cultivars, and introduce favorable traits into your elite commercial cultivar. I work in this field. This is where our food supply is going, where it has to go if we are to feed ourselves in a century, when changing conditions mean the crops being planted today will not achieve the same yields in the future.

And incremental organic evolution will happen after extinct animals are cloned, reintroduced into amenable habitats, and multiply for thousands of years.

> incremental organic evolution will happen after extinct animals are cloned, reintroduced into amenable habitats, and multiply for thousands of years

This is better than nothing. But species don't exist in a vacuum. Re-introducing an extinct species to a biome could be as jarring to its neighbors as its original elimination was. The most conservative path would be to cauterize the would and let the system heal, even if it takes a few million years.

For an absurd example, consider the effect of introducing a large number of saber-toothed tigers to their original habitats.

Heal to what? The idea that there is a natural ecosystem is nonsense. Humans and other organisms have been changing the environment since the beginning of life.

Life is a process, not a state.

I think you're confusing ecosystem (which word itself implies process) with equilibrium. It's quite fair to say that there was an actual ecosystem at least until the establishment of writing, at which point state information became transmissible across time and space beyond the capacity of individual organisms or eusocial colonies.

While you are correct that evolution would sooner or later take over, whether with assistance via cloning or blind luck if humans were to go extinct, you do need to consider the possibility that under some circumstances systems can collapse rather than bouncing back over a relatively short timeframe. Life would eventually re-establish itself, just as life persists in extremely arid desert conditions, but there's no guarantee it will do si n a timely fashion, and by timely here I mean on a timescale short enough for a human civilization to flourish in parallel with it.

I am just saying that the idea of returning to a natural equilibrium is nonsensical. We really just mean a form of nature that has a balance we find agreeable to human beings. Nothing more, nothing less. No human is okay with an equilibrium if it’s filled with killer wasps and sentient bears.

> Heal to what? The idea that there is a natural ecosystem is nonsense

There isn't a stable state, but there are multiple equilibria. We can quantify the robustness of an ecosystem, its resilience to exogenous shocks. That makes certain states "better" than others.

That resilience is low and decreasing. "Healing" means helping it increase. Re-introducing extinct species may or may not build a more robust and more productive biosphere.

Thousands of years is a VERY optimistic estimate. In the meantime, that's quite a few human generations who will have to live in a relative wasteland (compared to peak biodiversity). And that's IF you're right and we can just industrialize ourselves out of this problem too. Consider me skeptical.

On a biological timeline, it’s almost completely irrelevant. Humans spent tens of thousands of years in small tribal groups. I think we’ll be fine.

Besides that, most people in cities already live in a biodiversity wasteland.

So you're basically just arguing that technically humans will not go extinct, as long as there's at least two of them out there.

Okay fine, that very well be the case, but I think most of us would prefer not to live or have children or grandchildren that live to suffer (and probably be one of the casualties of) a 99% or higher percent population decline, which would still be 76 million people at the current population count.

No, that isn’t what I wrote. Try again.