Wait, Have We Really Wiped Out 60% of Animals?

Good reporting is becoming a bit rare these days, glad to see the Atlantic being precise. It's still a worrisome report but it is important to not misstate what that 60% figure really means.

&quot;The dichotomy between precision and impact is a false one.&quot; I love that sentence.<p>I hear time and time again strong disagreements on climate change, that simply boil down to a lack of precision on both sides. I also hear people called climate change deniers when they try add precision. It really doesn&#x27;t help get people on board to solve the issue. We don&#x27;t need propaganda to get people to take this seriously we need to build trust instead.

Tl; dr:<p>1. Distinguishes 60% reduction in living animals from 60% average reduction per-species. Then cherry-picks a hypothetical where the latter is less severe than the former (though it could be greater too).<p>2. Accepts that humanity has caused a huge loss in life, but mildly distracts by looking at &quot;since prehistory&quot; rather than the much more severe changes since 1970.<p>3. Concedes the distinction in point 1 is nitpicking, seemingly negating the point of the article.<p>4. Justifies itself with the explanation that without technical accuracy such claims are easy to mistakenly lump in with conspiracy-theories and ignored.

Yes, and all the other species of humans too.