Humans did reach equilibrium before the industrial revolution which allowed for exponential population growth that's only now starting to slow. It just looks li

Humans did reach equilibrium before the industrial revolution which allowed for exponential population growth that's only now starting to slow. It just looks like we never have it because we're in a growth phase right now. In future, we'll have to reach equilibrium again as we're constrained by resources or we enjoy our own lives more than we want to make babies. Predictions I've seen are for a maximum of 12 billion people. New species introduced into an ecosystem often wipe out existing species as they grow. It's happened on lots of islands. They eventually reach equilibrium too. It's quite normal and humans aren't special in that regard. We just happen to be the best at it right now. There is some emotion in your statements. The reason we want to protect the environment is because it has value to humans. It doesn't somehow deserve to be saved independently of us any more than an asteroid deserves to stay floating in space without crashing into any planets. If we can truly and permanently survive OK without as many species, then what's the harm in making them extinct besides emotion? Adding my own emotional opinion, I think humans really do deserve to dominate everything because we're absolutely the most incredible species ever to live on Earth. Through technology, we've giving ourselves more and more of the abilities of other animals. We can live in environments too hot, cold, or arid for any single other species. We can fly and "swim" across oceans, and even make meat for eating! If evolution had some sort of purpose, it would surely be to create the most capable organisms possible. So far, that's us and every species we wipe out deserved to go because it lost the game of evolution in the same way the poor soccer teams deserve to not win the World Cup.