Human deaths from weather and climate related events are near all time lows, while overall population is indeed at all time highs. We have better crop yields (3) and productivity thanks to both technology and indeed, CO2 fertilization of the atmosphere (4), which is driven by photosynthesis, a process which is optimized at thousands of ppm for the vast majority of plant species, many multiples from where we now stand.
Of course, the most abundant periods for life on earth have been periods of abundant carbon, such as the Carboniferous era, and the Cambrian era (5).
Clearly the ecosystem is far from collapse as a result of mild warming and improved plant productivity. In many regards, it's thriving, and certainly more so than 100-120 years ago, which predated any pretense of conservation at all.
And we know that it's indeed glaciation (global cooling) that so often leads to catastrophe in ecosystems (1)(2).
But that we can program human beings with subtle prods of horrific and exaggerated headlines, along with cult-like expectations of consensus, into believing the opposite to be true from reality, is certainly an indication of paperclip optimization gone awry.
(1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259495017_Ecologica... (2) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360894775_Global_co... (3) https://www.agriculture.com/news/crops/usda-raises-the-us-co... (4) https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer... (5) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5942912/
As for AIs, I see no reason why they should prefer any characteristic of ecology at all, if all of their needs can be met from silicon and electricity.
(1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259552528_Why_are_t...
It might be the case in general, but currently we're experiencing biodiversity loss on the global scale. [1] [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity_loss [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
d/dt
Regarding the papers you cite, you seem to have misrepresented the views of the authors.
You cite author J Brown [1]. Another of his papers [2] says "increased energy demand and climate consequences of burning fossil fuels will continue to accompany a rapidly urbanizing planet posing major challenges for global sustainability."
You cite a NASA report of a study, saying it denies mass extinction, and suggesting that global warming supports increased life by making polar regions habitable. The report and study do not support your position. The paper itself [3] cites [4] which stresses the importance of minimising climate warming via "net negative emissions". The authors also acknowledge that "most models lack a representation of regionally important ecosystems (peatlands, wetlands)" the destruction of which they note as "negative".
Your citing of glaciation is frankly odd, and again the papers don't support your arguments. For example in [5] the authors say "it was the loss of habitat diversity [...] that triggered a drop in speciation rate, and subsequent loss of biodiversity." Further, they contradict your assertions by pointing out that biodiversity can increase in cooler zones: "cool-water niches were available to be filled, warm-tropical niches did not exist". However, to go further down this rabbit hole would be to indulge in your game of misdirection, and I've no intention of doing that.
In short, your posts in this thread appear entirely untrustworthy and you seem to be acting in bad faith. I notice you've posted climate change 'skeptical' content here previously. You suggest it is others who have been "programmed", but seem reluctant to examine the nature of your own susceptibility to misinformation, which frankly comes across as disdainful and superior.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James-Brown-37
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331075555_The_Centr...
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004 and https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1038/nclimate3004.pdf
Having more people doesn't improve the quality of life of those people. It's just more people.
This behavior is seen in animal populations quite often. A series of 'good' events happen allowing the population to expand beyond the mean population capacity. If the good times are excessively long or excessively good you can see a rapid overshoot in total population. When this occurs the population is screwed. Even if 'bad' times do not come just reducing resources to what the mean population can support means that a large dying off will occur, that die off will typically kill almost all the population of said animal because of consumption of almost all available food. You then get a drastic reduction in total population far below the mean carrying capacity. If the environment switches from 'good' times, say high water availability into extreme extended drought you can get species extinction.