Animals kill other animals, in competition for food, shelter, etc. (and sometimes even for sport); human beings have been pretty good by this measure, pretty successful, though not nearly so successful as some others (like bacteria). Why should we feel any particular guilt for acting according to our biology and nature?

It's understandable why we sometimes extend our concern to members outside of our species -- part of our extraordinary evolutionary heritage is the capacity for empathy -- but this doesn't turn us into villains for hunting or being industrious.

Because rising above our natural instincts is a noble goal and being more than our animalistic instincts instead of giving in is a fight worth fighting as a species

Another point, we've made extinct many more than a 100. Why are these notable but not others? Why are they notable or especially remarkable?

You thinking by countering a few examples as if that's the whole picture is sadly misdirected logic, it's a far bigger picture than that, you will need to do some serious research if your really looking for some truth in this complex matter   

Many major crops have progressed in areas of resistance to disease due to the injection of wild genes from natural stock, look it up, also due to the fact your unaware of this may mean you don't really have a full grasp of how interconnected we are to our ecological biodiversity, I would suggest you look into it seriously instead of countering small points   

Please don't think any improvement over a small time frame will always last (even a 1000 yrs is a short time), it's a common historical mistake which we should learn from  

I'm not sure what to say to this.  You are pointing to evidence of progress - an example of humans taking steps to improve our lives and further our survival - and saying it is an example of problem.  It's basically like saying the fact that lifespans are increasing is a sign that humans are about to go extinct.

The manner in which we are able to make crop yields so much higher is mostly unnatural. The mining needed for fertilizers can only go on so long, and when it runs out the barren soil won't grow squat.

Bees were being killed at alarming rates due to some chemicals used for crops to help attain those high yields. Those spray's have been taken off the market and new more enviro friendly one's are being used in their place, with worse results even at higher costs.

The problem with progress, is that it's far from universally agree'd upon, in it's many minute details, and that is because one man's trash is another man's treasure. Another problem, is that while animal species tend to grow and shrink, human's aren't locked into that natural balancing cycle. On one hand you can say that's proof we're 'growing' too fast, but on the other hand, as far as we know, nothing on this planet has ever come close to what we're able to do, so does that mean we can pretty much do whatever we want within reason?

The universe tends to be a balancing act, so how far can humanity push things is a question we don't yet know the answer to. Can we completely change Earth, terraform Mars, and get away with it, or are we stuck here with the way things are for as long as we can survive the natural changes? We likely can't survive staying locked to Earth forever, so that may mean eventually leaving it behind once we've stripped it bare and moved on to other planets. Should we? It's almost impossible to know the answer until it's been attempted. The bright side of that, is if it's attempted, and fails, the eventual outcome of extinction doesn't change, other than the accelerated timeline perhaps.

That being said, our progress definitely needs to be watched carefully and analyzed, because ruining Earth before we can get off her basically defeats the purpose of said progress. One step at a time is better, safer, and a much stronger momentum driver than two steps forward and one step back.

I'm sure you can fit more in a smaller space Matrix style!

The problem is not over population, it's over consumption.

So far all our technology only makes us consume faster.

Because those are the ones that look cute and are harmless to humans. Same bullshit with that arbitrary line of which animal is considered food and which is supposed to be cherished.

I would argue against that since mostly farm animals are easier to contain and work well with our bodies. I can't think of any other mammal so easy to consume, yet delicious as well. It's just I don't think eating a lion would be as delicious as a lamb or as easy even if there were more lions. Farm animals are our natural prey. But you're right cuteness=/=remarkable in my book

Cows and pigs were domesticated and didn't look like they did today. They've been extensively bred to be as useful as they are today. If we used deer or dogs like that they would probably be close to pigs and cows today. But it's not like the efficiency of the food source should be a deciding factor in what is ok to eat and what not. I mean we eat potato chips despite being less than favorable as nutrition. Dogs and cats might have less meat on their bones but it's still meat. It's all just arbitrary lines drawn by arbitrary morals.

People say they care about animals and then turn around and squash the next mosquito they see.