Will we soon be extinct?

The fossil record is the history of our planet. It's composed of information gathered from fossils, rock layers, ice samples and other geological phenomena. When put together, this information forms a picture of life and climate on Earth over the past 550 million years.

The population ecologists compared 520 million years of Earth's climate change with species extinction throughout the same period. What they found is somewhat alarming. During times of cool weather -- called icehouse periods -- biodiversity thrives. Biodiversity is the presence of a large number of different species. If an ecosystem (or planet) is diverse, then the conditions are right to support evolution, reproduction and genetic divergence. In other words, if our planet was a business, then biodiversity means business is good.

But during warm greenhouse periods, biodiversity suffers. This lack of biodiversity appears to be due to mass extinction -- the loss of large numbers of different species. According to the British population ecologists' study, as the global climate has heated up in the past, large numbers of species have died out. Could the effect of climate change on previous mass extinctions forecast our imminent future?

So why might this be a big deal for us? Some of the worst mass extinctions found in the fossil record took place during climates very similar to the one in which we currently live. The York and Leeds researchers suggest that, based on predicted increases in temperatures over this century, Earth could see another mass extinction event as soon as a few generations from now. That means our younger readers' grandchildren could be around when this mass extinction occurs.

But science can't say for certain that it will. There's no evidence that periods of global warming have been directly responsible for mass extinction events. But researchers are able to show direct correlations between global warming and mass extinctions in the past. Higher temperatures loom conspicuously during these periods of extinction.

The worst mass extinction found in the fossil record took place 251 million years ago, during the Permian Period at the end of the Paleozoic Era. At that time, 95 percent of the global population (including all species) met their demise [source: University of York]. No one can say exactly why this mass extinction took place. Some scientists believe that a series of comets hit the planet and caused the oceans to become acidic (also creating acid rain inland). Others believe that poisonous gas from erupting volcanoes caused the same acidic cataclysm. Either way, it's clear that while these massive global natural disasters happened, the global temperature had also risen.

Regardless, why should we humans care if the planet may soon see another mass extinction like the one at the end of the Permian Period? After all, we've beaten acid rain before. And even if it gets hot outside, we have air conditioners. We (and our pets) should be okay, even if a mass extinction occurs -- right? Probably not. As it turns out, losing 95 percent of all species is really, really bad for the surviving 5 percent.

We humans have come a long way in gaining our independence from the whims of Mother Nature. We've learned how to build shelters and clothe ourselves. Through agriculture and irrigation, we can control our own food supply. We've built schools, hospitals, computers, automobiles, airplanes, and space shuttles. So what's the big deal if a bunch of plants, animals, and simple organisms die out?

Here's the problem with the loss of biodiversity: The Earth functions like an incredibly complex machine, and there don't appear to be any unnecessary parts. Each species -- from the lowliest microbe to humans -- plays a part in keeping the planet running smoothly. In this sense, each part is related. If a lot of those parts suddenly vanish, then the machine that is Earth can't function properly.

For example, the crops that we grow though our clever use of agriculture are enabled by the nitrogen present in the soil. This nitrogen nourishes and strengthens our crops. But where does it come from? Worms, bacteria and other life found within the soil love to decompose vegetation. When they eat, these organisms produce nitrogen as waste, which crops really love. This is also how nutrient-rich compost is made. If these bacteria species were killed off, then our crops would not grow properly, and there wouldn't be enough food.

This holds true for ocean ecosystems too. The ocean -- along with land-based plant vegetation -- plays a major role in absorbing carbon dioxide -- a gas that humans can't breathe. The ocean doesn't absorb this CO² on its own. It relies on organisms like phytoplankton -- microscopic aquatic plant life -- to absorb the CO². Loss of phytoplankton means we lose adequate levels of breathable air.

Even some of our own modern advances in technology depend on nature. Modern medicine owes much to the properties found naturally in plants and bacteria. Medications like painkillers, penicillin and inoculations are based on natural organisms. The structure of these living things has been analyzed and synthesized to produce some medications, but others -- like antibiotics -- still use the actual organisms. In total, this accounts for one-quarter of all the prescription drugs we use [source: David Suzuki Foundation]. What's more, if the Earth suddenly lost its hearty biodiversity, drugs that have yet to be discovered would also be lost.

Even if we humans could find a way to overcome a catastrophic loss of biodiversity, our existence on Earth would certainly be changed. There's a very important economic aspect to biodiversity as well. In 1997, Cornell University scientists tallied the dollar value of all the services provided for humanity by life on Earth. Everything from ecotourism and pollination to soil formation and pharmaceuticals was taken into account. The total for services provided to humanity by Mother Nature came to $2.9 trillion per year (another study concluded the total was $33 trillion) [source: Science Daily].

These services would still be required, with or without a diverse global ecosystem. As the resources that provided these services (like nitrogen produced by worms) dwindled, humans would have to replace them in order to survive. Stores of things like nitrogen for soil and medicine for the sick would quickly and significantly increase in value. Competition for these dwindling resources would develop, with wealthier and better armed countries inevitably winning. Life, indeed, would change for humanity as a result of a loss of biodiversity. It would quickly get worse.

Our human species faces existential threats like never before. While the risks of a climate emergency have always been present, early homo sapiens never had to contend with nuclear weapons or manmade pollution.

For the human evolution to extend beyond the next century, we need to make sacrifices to counter climate change. Otherwise, we face an ecological collapse in our near future -- a mass extinction event the human race hasn't seen in millions of years.

For more information on earth sciences, be sure to visit the next page.