Scientists warn of a "ghastly future": mass extinction and climate chaos
Mass extinction sounds like an event belonging to the age of the dinosaurs, but a group of 17 scientists argues that humanity is already moving in a very dangerous direction. In an article published in the journal Frontiers in Conservation Science, they warned that the loss of biodiversity, the climate crisis, and the increasing pressure exerted by humans on natural systems could lead to a "ghastly future" if significant changes are not made.
Mass extinction sounds like an event belonging to the age of the dinosaurs, but a group of 17 scientists argues that humanity is already moving in a very dangerous direction. In an article published in January 2021 in the journal Frontiers in Conservation Science, they warned that the loss of biodiversity, the climate crisis, and the increasing pressure exerted by humans on natural systems could lead to a "ghastly future" if significant changes are not made.
This is not a new experimental study, but a perspective article that synthesized findings from a large number of previous works. Among its 17 authors are Corey Bradshaw from Flinders University, Paul Ehrlich from Stanford University, and Daniel Blumstein from UCLA, and the article relies on more than 150 scientific sources.
Researchers argue that one of the problems is the time lag between environmental destruction and the price it exacts. Damage to habitats, warming, and loss of species can accumulate over years, while the impact on food, health, economy, and migration often becomes clear only later. According to them, the scale of the threat to the biosphere and the life within it is so great that even experts struggle to grasp it fully.
On the way to the sixth extinction?
The sharpest phrasing in the article concerns the loss of species. The authors wrote that, from their perspective, there is no longer any scientific doubt that the world is "on the way to a sixth mass extinction." They do not claim that three-quarters of Earth's species have already disappeared — the threshold accepted in the article for defining mass extinction — but rather that the current rate of damage could push the world there.
The broader claim that biodiversity is in crisis is also reinforced by sources unrelated to the research team. The global assessment by IPBES (an intergovernmental body for the study of the state of nature and biodiversity) determined that about a million species of animals and plants are at risk of extinction, many of them within decades, and that the rate of species extinction is already at least tens to hundreds of times higher than the average over the last ten million years.
The significance is not limited to the loss of rare animals. Ecosystems provide humans with pollination, clean water, food, fertile soils, climate regulation, and other services. When they are eroded, the researchers warn, the ability of human society to cope with other crises is also impaired.
Population and consumption
A central part of the article deals with the world's population and consumption. When it was published in 2021, the authors estimated that the number of people would reach about 9.9 billion by 2050, and argued that a combination of population growth, high consumption, and unequal distribution of resources would increase pressure on food, land, energy, and natural systems.
Since then, forecasts have been updated. According to the latest UN population forecast from 2024, the world's population is expected to reach about 9.7 billion by 2050 and a peak of about 10.3 billion by the mid-2080s, before a moderate decline towards the end of the century. That is, the general direction of further growth remains, but the forecast today is lower than what was accepted when the article was written.
The authors also emphasize the other side of the equation: not just how many people live in the world, but how much each one consumes. According to the article, per capita consumption in high-income countries is significantly higher than in poor countries, so population size alone does not explain the scale of environmental damage.
And what about "mass migration"?
The article also warned of a significant increase in migration and population displacement following climate change and environmental pressures. It referred to an old and particularly broad estimate of 25 million to a billion "environmental migrants" by 2050 — a huge range that illustrates how uncertain forecasts in this field are.
Knowledge published since then paints a more complex picture. The IPCC states with high confidence that climate and weather events are significant factors in migration and displacement, but also that the direction and scale of movement depend on economic, social, and political conditions. Most migration currently related to weather disasters occurs within national borders, and not necessarily in international waves to the north or south. Since 2008, extreme weather events have caused an average of more than 20 million internal displacements per year.
Scientific debate
A few months after the article's publication, a critique by seven researchers appeared in the same journal. They did not dispute the severity of the climate and biodiversity crises, but argued that the emphasis the article places on population growth relies on controversial assumptions and could divert attention from overconsumption, inequality, and resource-intensive production patterns.
The authors of the original article replied that they never claimed that population growth is the only or central cause of the crisis. According to them, human impact is the result of several factors acting together, including the number of people, the volume of consumption, the economic structure, and the way resources are distributed. They also reiterated their support for education for women, access to family planning, and the reduction of overconsumption.
"Cold shower" — not a surrender notice
Despite the apocalyptic title, the 17 researchers emphasized that the article is not a call to give up. According to them, there are already successful examples of saving species, restoring ecosystems, and promoting sustainable economic activity. The goal, they wrote, is to give leaders a "cold shower" that will clarify the dimensions of the problem before the options to act diminish.
Their message is simpler than the threatening phrasing: humanity is not about to see the Earth "dead" — but it is certainly capable of making large parts of it more difficult, dangerous, and poorer to live in. And precisely because of the gap between the rate of damage and the moment when the price is felt, they warn that the convenient time to act may end long before the ghastly future becomes visible.
