There seems to be an unquestioned assumption in mainstream environmentalism and/or rewilding that ‘we’ (ie: members of civilised societies) depend upon the health of ‘nature’ or ‘ecosystem services’ in the same way that any other species does, and that therefore the 6th mass extinction (as well as other environmental calamities) is a tragedy for ‘us’ as much as for the species it actually kills off.
I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the civilised society, namely that this culture, based on the domestication of plants and animals, has set itself in direct opposition to the health of the surrounding ecology (basically declared war) and that therefore the health of our food-producing and economic systems requires the impoverishment of the land & wildlife which lives there. Thus I would argue the global extinction rate of 200+ species per day should be honestly viewed as measure of this culture’s success, rather than tragic failure - the underlying goal being to convert as much of the living planet into human (via domesticate) biomass. Also the fact that so much of this culture’s subsistence comes via fossil fuels & industrial production places it in a yet more deeply antagonistic position towards the rest of life on the planet - because we no longer need them.
For an example of how weak the analysis is currently, have a listen to this discussion on Radio 4, during which George Monbiot expands on his ridiculous notion that rewilded ecosystems can be a boon to civilisation:
This seems to be a broader problem in current environmental thinking: the search for a ‘win-win’ where industrial civ can continue as usual, but nonhuman life can be harnessed to provide citizens with recreation and/or the monetised ‘ecosystem services’ which actually enhance the ability of the capitalist economy to (presumably) go on mining the planet for every available resource. Few people seem to understand that in order for the living world to have a ‘win’ the industrial/civilised system is going to have to lose, and not in a small way either.
Basically I’m thinking that accommodation is a dead end, and usually ends up enabling the destructive activity it claims to be opposed to. Eg: Monbiot’s shameful support of the nuclear industry.