Which all points to the probability the enviromentalists and conservationalists of the late 20th and early 21st centruies will in the future will be known as the denialists of evolution and temperary pests who flourished momentarilly, before nature destroyed their foundations.

Lol

And Frank.
Ascension Island is one of the landfalls I was intending on my circumnavigation. Your article reinforced my intent. The commonly accepted man made garden of Eden, Chagos is another. Have there been similar investivations of it's environment?

Stezza,

Yes, my responses have been on an emotional basis, a 'life view' basis, and with a limited understanding of the ecology of the bio-sphere.
But, perhaps I am not alone in my concern for the interaction between humans and the environment, and where this interplay may be heading.
I do not view Sir David Attenborough or Dr David Suzuki as 'misanthropes'; nor do I see Greenpeace as a collection of Japanophobes or bludging 'tree' (or whale) 'huggers'. (Pushing it uphill maybe, but not entirely delusional.)

We are blessed with an ability to evaluate motivations, both from an emotional and a pragmatic viewpoint. Perhaps only 'we' have ability to make conscious choices as to whether to consume or to conserve, in the longer term interest; but this confers responsibility, along with capacity, to avoid unintended consequences.

Is all life 'sacred', or only that which we perceive to be of value?
What impact the loss of this or that colourful or drab, even noxious, lifeform? Will it be aware of the niche it leaves, or of any downstream impacts? Will it feel anguish at its impending demise?
When 'Lonesome George' died, the end of his line, only humans noticed, and the sky did not fall; but the world was a little less.
So much may be of no consequence; one evolution or one extinction of small interest; but mass extinction, mass manipulation, leaves the question 'to what end'?

Only 'we' have the capacity to conserve or to manipulate on a grand scale, and though nature can and does adapt (and is ever changing), there are limits. Only 'we' may notice the impacts of our collective actions; the question is will 'we' make the world a better place - for us, for future generations - if we ride roughshod rather than work in harmony with 'nature'?

Emotion is a tenuous foothold, but, without it, music, art, love, and 'life' itself make little sense.
If we make the world a lesser place, we injure ourselves.
Humans may be great, but nature is our home, our inspiration.