Based on how much habitat we’ve destroyed, and assuming some number of species per unit-area
Can you elaborate on this? What about the estimates did you find implausible?
Species-area relationships are pretty reliable when used for estimating other factors. Using them for extinction estimation is upward-biased. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09985 suggests the bias of overestimation is a similar magnitude as the underestimation caused by dark extinctions (extinctions of species before they are classified).
Maybe to be clear: I am also interested in a rationalist looking over the data of habit-destruction-extrapolation and arguing “I think this argument is actually good, here are the things I doublechecked.” I just don’t trust an eco group not to have motivatedly used degrees of freedom to exaggerate.
Can you elaborate on this? What about the estimates did you find implausible?
Species-area relationships are pretty reliable when used for estimating other factors. Using them for extinction estimation is upward-biased. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09985 suggests the bias of overestimation is a similar magnitude as the underestimation caused by dark extinctions (extinctions of species before they are classified).
Maybe to be clear: I am also interested in a rationalist looking over the data of habit-destruction-extrapolation and arguing “I think this argument is actually good, here are the things I doublechecked.” I just don’t trust an eco group not to have motivatedly used degrees of freedom to exaggerate.