This paper examines the stone tool evidence associated with extinctions among Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and Homo in Eastern Africa between 0.8 and 3.5 Ma. It does this using Stoneworking Modes A-I, a relatively new framework for comparing stone tool evidence, and data from the Eastern African Prehistoric Stoneworking Survey. While the evolutionary transition between early Homo and H. ergaster/erectus seems correlated with a shift from occasional to habitual stoneworking, Australopithecus’ and Paranthropus’ last appearance dates do not appear correlated with major changes in the archaeological record.

Generation length is a key parameter for extinction risk assessment in the IUCN Red List, defining the biological horizon over which population decline is measured. Generation length data are largely unavailable, and a naive time frame of 10 years is often used to represent the three-generation horizon required for assessing decline in short-lived species. This assumption risks introducing biases in the assessment. Here, we quantified how using a 10-year time frame, instead of one based on predicted generation lengths, affects the extinction risk assessments of amphibians: one of the most imperiled groups worldwide. We measured past deforestation trends for 1,278 forest-dependent amphibian species and predicted future climate-driven habitat change for 1,559 species. Using predicted generation lengths systematically increased the percentage of declining species from deforestation (3–29%) and climate change (1–20%). This was also reflected in a higher proportion of species potentially assessed as threatened. Relying on a 10-year period to assess extinction risk can lead to substantial underestimations across both past and future time frames, compared to using predicted generation length. Predictions of generation length can allow applying IUCN Red List criteria in the absence of empirical data and improve consistency of extinction risk assessments.

Rewilding is a transformative conservation strategy that emphasises the restoration of ecological processes and ecosystem resilience. This perspective article addresses limitations in current rewilding monitoring practices, which predominantly rely on quantitative metrics. We argue for the integration of qualitative approaches to better capture the complexity and interdependence of human–nature interactions that shape rewilding outcomes. Drawing on social–ecological systems (SES) thinking, we propose a holistic monitoring framework that combines quantitative and qualitative measures. This approach reflects emerging shifts in conservation mindsets – recognising humans as part of nature, valuing biodiversity intrinsically as well as instrumentally, and embracing uncertainty and complexity over control. We suggest that Holling’s panarchy – a framework for understanding adaptive cycles and cross-scale interactions – can support the design of rewilding interventions and guide monitoring. By focusing on fast- and slow-changing variables, panarchy enhances adaptive management and supports context-sensitive theories of change. This article contributes to the rewilding discourse by offering practical guidance for practitioners and policymakers, promoting a shift towards inclusive, adaptive and transformative monitoring practices.

Preventing human-caused extinctions is a foundational aim of conservation. However, in addition to causing extinctions, humans have moved numerous species to new areas. A considerable percentage of these are threatened in their native ranges. Broadening our conservation ethos to include introduced species is contentious and requires critical thinking in empirical and normative dimensions to negotiate between conflicting conservation goals. Here, we present a series of questions to inspire critical thinking in the negotiation of these conflicts. Empirically, we suggest that conservationists should consider whether the effects of introduced species are due to their non-nativeness per se or are simply a consequence of the organism having a metabolism and taking up space. Importantly, this requires proper scientific comparison to the effects of similar native organisms – otherwise many claims of ‘harm’ are unfalsifiable and could be used to justify the eradication of any organism. We further propose questions to help conservationists sort facts from normative values, which often wear empirical clothes. Through empirical rigor, value transparency and critical justification of these values, we believe that twenty- first century conservation can become a future-facing and pluralistic discipline with a heightened ability to prevent extinctions in an increasingly unpredictable and novel biosphere.

Early human cultural dynamics underpin the Plio-Pleistocene archaeological record and impact how we understand some of our earliest identifiable behaviours. One major outstanding question is whether Early Stone Age material culture represents a single lineage of cultural information, or did we ever lose the knowledge required to make stone tools? No single approach satisfactorily addresses this problem, but to date, objective analyses of temporal data have been absent from the conversation. Here, using a comprehensive database of dated African Oldowan archaeological sites, we demonstrate that there are no temporal breaks large enough, on a relative basis, to infer a loss of stone-tool-making cultural information. Therefore, alongside previously published data, we infer a continuous record of early human stone tool production in Africa from c. 3.3 to 1.5 million years ago. Stone tool-associated behavioural adaptations and evolutionary selective pressures were, therefore, likely to have been ever present during this period.

Scientists still debate whether small groups of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers caused the extinction of large Ice Age animals like prehistoric elephants, giant sloths and cave lions. Beyond paleontology, this question has deep sociological implications and is relevant for how we understand the role of humankind in today’s environmental crisis. A human-driven megafauna extinction has often fostered the idea of a naturalization of human environmental impacts and the belief that all people (modern or ancient, rich or poor, from any part of the world) share responsibility for the current crisis. But is that true? In the review, I discuss whether a long evolutionary history of impacts really makes us inevitably destructive, compelling humanity to accept a devastating anthropocentric dominance as the fateful destiny natural selection built for us. In contrast, I argue that, while our exceptional ability to shape environments has made us a ‘hyper-keystone’ species, benefiting only a few species and humans, this same ability also has the potential to help us restore balance to the world. That requires rejecting anthropocentric supremacy and placing ecosystems at the center stage of our relationship with nonhuman nature. We may have wiped out the mammoths and mastodons, but human destructiveness is not fate.