If we don't limit our inroads in to this planet's resources, we will cause our own extinction.
Throwing nuclear devices at each other would achieve the same result, but with more agony.

"If we don't limit our inroads in to this planet's resources"

The only problem with that assertion is that there aren't any resources that we are running out of.

The doomsayers have been asserting for a century that we are going to run out of this or that resource - we never do.

.

Dear mhaze

.

You wrote :

« How many species have gone extinct in Australia since 1788? … 100 out of 600,000 »
.

That certainly puts things in perspective, mhaze, and is somewhat reassuring, at least from a purely statistical point of view.

But then when we look a little more closely at the composition of those 600,000 species and exactly which species have already gone extinct as well as those that are in danger of going extinct “in the short term”, things are not quite as reassuring as they seem at first sight.

I understand that insects represent about 75% of all know species and we don’t seem to have lost any of them. According to the Science Direct article to which you kindly posted a link, the 100 species that were noted to have become extinct at the last count were :

« one protist, 38 vascular plants, ten invertebrates, one fish, four frogs, three reptiles, nine birds and 34 mammals »

Though we may not miss, nor even notice, the loss of species such as insects, protists, vascular plants, etc., we probably will miss many if not all of those 9 birds and 34 mammals.

Apart from our important insect population, it seems we are now left with the following :

- 8128 accepted described species known as chordate, which include vertebrates, as well as 98,703 invertebrates, 24,716 plants, 11,846 fungi, and around 4186 in other groups

That ties up roughly with the overall average estimate of 75% insects and 25% other species.

But it’s a bit disturbing to learn that Australia is a global leader in wildlife extinction, especially since we have the second-largest number of endemic species – plants and animals found nowhere else in the world.

I hope we’ll be able to do something to preserve what’s left of our birds, fish, and mammals in particular.

Here is an interesting article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald in July 2020 :

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/why-is-australia-a-global-leader-in-wildlife-extinctions-20200717-p55cyd.html

.

Lets look at what causes the depletion of our natural
resources.

Some of the things listed are - overpopulation, our
consumption and waste, deforestation and the destruction of
ecosystems to loss of biodiversity, mining of minerals and
oil, erosion, pollution and contamination of resources,
technological and industrial development are some
of the things listed.

There are of course some people who believe that we shall
continue to ahve water to drink. That we won't run out
of fossil fuels. That our oil supply won't decrease.
That we'll continue to supply natural gas and that we shall
always have fish to eat.

But scientists and conservationists are warning us of what our
future will look like if we don't listen to what we are
being told. The choice is up to us. Live for today - who
cares about tomorrow? Perhaps future generations do!

"Lets look at what causes the depletion of our natural
resources."

What natural resource is depleted? Name 'em.

One way to tell if a resource is depleting is to look at its price. If we are running out of something, the price rises. No such resource exists. As I've said many times here, humankind has never run out of a resource.

As if to emphasis just how immune to the facts some are, I've previously shown evidence that Australia is REforesting not DEforesting. Yey the Foxy's of the world just carry on a though those facts just don't matter, or even exist.

A quote I saw today..." People are much more upset about being given a fact they don't want to be true, than being told a lie".

Banjo Paterson: "But it’s a bit disturbing to learn that Australia is a global leader in wildlife extinction, especially since we have the second-largest number of endemic species – plants and animals found nowhere else in the world."

But why do you find this disturbing?

Why does the number of extant species seem so important to you?

Do you realise that the vast, vast majority of species (we're talking 95%+ here) that have ever been went extinct BEFORE homo-sapiens evolved into existence?

Does the extinction of these previous-to-human species disturb you, or is it just the extinction of those that are contemporaneous with us humans that upset you?

And if the current number of living species are so important to environmentalists, then why don't they advocate for creating new species*?

[*: many aren't aware that humans can and have made new species. For example, the domestic dog results from human actions, but the process of its evolution took 10,000s of years. These days with modern science we can genetically engineer new species in a lab very quickly. Today we could pump out any number new species that we wanted within our lifetimes, its just a matter of funding.]