Yes it does. Animals will go extinct whether at an accelerated rate or not. All we can do is observe and admire the remaining specimens. Or as my mother would say "let go"
There are various reasons as to why these animals are going extinct, including arctic oscillation, climate change, exploitation or natural invasion from other species. And no its not because the government isn't moving a few million from a multibillion military budget. In fact i sure hope they don't, cause obviously preserving animals are more important than say investing in our kids or our healthcare system right?
How exactly can this ecology professor even calculate the amount of new species? Considering the fact that humans don't even know 99% of the species in the deeper sea, or the fact that we humans don't know all the insect species or other aerial birds that live in non populated islands or mountains. Exactly. No one knows.
I highly disagree with "we are causing species to be lost at rates of 100 to 1000 times faster" What is the natural rate? There is no natural rate, as Earth itself has proven time and time again. Look at the wipe out of the dinos, or the last ice age or even the multiple ice ages before.
The total global nuclear arsenal is about 30,000 nuclear warheads with a destructive capacity of 5,000 megatons (5,000 million tons of TNT).
An air burst (detonating a bomb above the surface) would produce far more damage and death via radioactive fallout than one detonating at ground level.
A single 100 megaton air burst would be enough to cause a nuclear winter and pollute the Earth for many many years. Theoretically, a 100 megaton bomb detonated below ground could produce a massive earthquake and the constant explosions of a full blown nuclear war may also cause numerous earthquakes around the globe. But this would not destroy the world nor all human life.
Globally there are not enough nuclear bombs to completely kill every human. The Tsar Bomb (largest bomb ever detonated) had a fallout of 1000 square kilometres, and was 50 MT. The world is close to 150 million square kilometres, and the human population covers close to 18 million square kilometres.
Therefore to get a rough idea we can say hypothetically that the 5000 megatones of nuclear warheads was 100 Tsar Bombs (the same value in megatons). If these bombs were detonated their total radioactive fallout would cover 100,000 square kilometres.
It may be surprising to hear that this covers less than 1% of the area that the human population covers, which should give a general idea of the miniscule size of impact this would have on the total world's surface. Therefore it can be shown that we do not have the capacity at the moment to destory the world with nuclear warheads.
However, there are factors we have overlooked, which include:
- Tsar Bomb has a very small radioactive fallout in comparison with its megatone value
- Nuclear wardheads can be assumed to target densly populated locations, and
- Nuclear winter which would result in the radioactive fallout
To put curiousty to rest, even if we replaced our Tsar Bomb equation with nuclear warheads that had a higher radioactive yield to fulfill the 5000 megatons global nuclear arsenal we would still not come close to the amount of radioactive fallout required to cover the area the human population covers, let alone destroy the world.
If nuclear warheads were targeted at densly populated locations it would increase the fatalities of a nuclear war, however this would still not wipe out humanity, let alone destroy the world.
Nuclear winter can in lamer terms be contrasted with the ice age. The ice age did not destory the world, and did not wipe out all life, therefore neither would nuclear winter. Humanity is extremley resilient, and although many of the world's population die due to starvation if they did not die from the initial nuclear war or radiation, life will find a way.
So no...i'm not worried.