Thanks Prof Eveland. It is interesting that even the K-T event(s) has(have) recently been discussed in terms of placental mammals, which only appeared AFTER the boundary apparently, although our marsupials got through it all along with those dinosaurs the birds! Such recent discussions talk about the K-T asteroid AND the volcanics, something of a relief I think, but nevertheless the volcanics seem to be referred to as almost to be an insignificant side issue.
Similarly with the debate going on about Tunguska, another Act of God that was twice the size of this week's meteor which had apparently the force of 30X Hiroshima, thus Tunguska must have been about 60X as it is twice the size. But because it burnt up in the atmosphere there was only the small localised shockwave in the first case, and the trees can still be seen standing in the videos! But apparently there was a huge shockwave in the second Tunguska case, to account for all the flattened trees, thus it must have got through the atmosphere or something, but if so wouldn't it have blown up half the known world? Otherwise if Tunguska was similar and burnt up at the boundary, thus in the recent event of half the size why isn't there any flattened trees to speak of at all???? Mt St Helens volcano is pretty good for flattened trees but doesn't involve a meteor of 60X Hiroshima coming below the atmospheric boundary! It seems to me the evidence doesn't add up for the Tunguska meteor effect.
Of course Tunguska is in Siberia, so an alternative hypothesis is (underground derived) gas explosions, which as you say may already be causal in other events, but that is given little airplay compared to the Act of God.
Which means of course the emphasis is on things "out there" causing things "down here". But as you say there is enough going on on the planet itself to warrant serious attention. I do think we may need anti-asteroid defences, but really I think we need to focus more on the planet itself.
On that note, there was quite a long (and somewhat bogged down) discussion on Gaia on the Conversation a year ago. In that I brought up the fact that though there is a synchotron in Geneva to examine the workings of the Universe (and one in Melbourne I might add), there is yet to be a serious international institute to examine the validity of whether the Earth's abiotic and biotic processes can be considered as one "system" such as Gaia, driven perhaps by the biotic. Or whether it is an intersection between the two sets as I think of it. Or whether it is two entirely separate arrangements of biotic and abiotic processes, as many geologists seem to think, and which leads to an unfortunate appraisal of climate change as being only an abiotic process, and therefore not anthropogenic in the minds of some geologists (which would be true if the biotic could not hugely influence the abiotic, which most biologists are aware is more than feasible). However the atmospheric scientists in the IPCC etc are battling away with the complexity of it all, without a clear and scientifically determined analysis of whether there is one system (Gaia) or two (separate abiotic/biotic), or an intersecting system by a large international body. To some extent therefore they are grappling with the pieces rather than looking at the whole.
Meanwhile the Chinese are trying to establish another Biosphere experiment setup, in order to establish a garden on Mars, a wonderful aim. However it may prove to be fruitless if we don't focus seriously on how the planet we are on works in the first place, thus like the Biosphere experiment, it may fail.
I found during my return to studies as a mature student that there is also an impasse in the soil sciences between those with the physical approach and those with the biological approach to soil processes, including carbon. They also do not seem to have ventured outside to talk to ecologists.
Similarly with the recent bushfires, there is an entire quorum of fire scientists, none of whom seem to have ever sat down with an ecologist, in spite of the fact that the fires actually burn what are generally referred to as ecological systems i.e. forests etc.! The governments adopt the physical approach to the issue of the fire scientists, and the ecologists are scarcely referenced, which in my view is disastrous.
It is very unfortunate that we are focussing huge efforts on determining the workings of the Universe (which I am not saying we shouldn't do) and very little on how this planet functions as a system, Gaia, or otherwise. In addition to add injury to insult, evolutionary events such as extinctions are passed off as merely Acts of God. However presumably this follows the general approach to the functioning of the planetary system(s) which seem heavily reliant on a physical approach. As such the physical sciences, which I do have deep regard for nontheless, have been incredibly effective in creating a status quo for the world's view of science that equates Natural Sciences to Physical Sciences. And thus Nature is not natural, it is either a planetary process or not of this world!
Perhaps the Chinese would be interested in an international Biotron to examine the validity of Gaia or otherwise? It seems unlikely human efforts could plant a garden on Mars, or understand the planet's climate and its interaction with land (soil carbon etc.) without having a grasp on basic system parameters. One thing Lovelock did at least, was ask the question, do the biota control the planet or not?