Lol. I'd opened the article, read the headline, then saw the link to the freetext paper which I then read instead of the article.
This is what the paper says:
The evidence is incontrovertible that recent extinction rates are unprecedented in human history and highly unusual in Earth’s history. Our analysis emphasizes that our global society has started to destroy species of other organisms at an accelerating rate, initiating a mass extinction episode unparalleled for 65 million years. If the currently elevated extinction pace is allowed to continue, humans will soon (in as little as three human lifetimes) be deprived of many biodiversity benefits. On human time scales, this loss would be effectively permanent because in the aftermath of past mass extinctions, the living world took hundreds of thousands to millions of years to rediversify.
Then Discovery puts this as
"If it is allowed to continue, life would take many millions of years to recover, and our species itself would likely disappear early on."
Did Discovery just slant the above text to increase its impact, or is it actually an unedited quote provided for the article by the scientist? Either way, it's pretty stupid and unfortunately both practices are common in science reporting. That's why I prefer reading the original papers...