It's true, nature's killed more things than people, the difference is that people have a choice.

There's no reason to not try and conserve a species. Certainly "yeah well, nature kills stuff too" is not a good reason.

We have knowledge, nature doesn't. Conservation efforts don't hurt anyone.

What's causing this problem is very simple from a broad perspective but can get very technical and confusing on the specifics.(I'm going to focus on the broad for the time being) I like to think of an example that hits home for me. Think of it this way; When you are at the top of the food chain, you have an expansion of the species based upon food supply. We are currently at the top of the food chain and because of our very aggressive expansion we act like a virus. We live beyond our means and invade the habitats of other species. If those species are not able to adapt to the new habitat then they go extinct. This explains the why from a very broad perspective. Now we, being the intelligent species we are, know that when you eradicate habitats, the chances that certain species will become extinct is high. Our choice has been to decide what is most important to the maintenance and the extension of the human species. Are all these choices correct? Perhaps in a perception of extension/expansion but we will soon learn that everything has it's limitations. Are we willing to live off a food base that is created by in vitro and cloning or are we looking to coexist with what we have been given. We have gained much knowledge in the years about creation. ( I mean creation very much so in which we create organisms directly relating to advancements in genetics) This has been sort of a crutch/plan b for eradication of the worlds habitats aka biodiversity. More so is the rise of capitalism and planned obsolescence. There has been a trend of greed since the invention or creation of given value to physical objects. That world also created another way of being as a direct result which involves; A sense of coexistence with nature. This is simply shown by the spread of hunter gather civilizations vs farming/herding civilizations and their gain of power. Currently the farming and herding civilizations have successfully wiped off most of those hunter/ gather civilizations and we can see the results. I really think it'll come down to which allows us to survive the best. We're starting to see many scientists and logical thinkers looking towards hunter/gather methods of survival as the key to our future existence. The most important rule of thumb is to understand coexistence and determine what will be the most effective means for our survival...

well, about 90% of the world's species are extinct... and it all had to do with nature (you can say natural selection).

really, it's nothing past normal for animals to be threatened. and since man has increased population by a shitload over a small amount of times (a few hundred years), we are taking up more space, eating more animals, and consuming more resources. but that is a grain of salt compared to how nature takes effect.

animals have been dying out due to nature since the birth of Earth.

I think that the reason so many animals are going extinct is because they go so well with mash potatoes and gravy ;)

I feel like even the simpleist things that people can do to save the environment are being ignored just to spite the human race. For instance recycling cans and bottles is so easy to do and yet so many people just throw them away or shove them with normal recycling. Also getting energy effecient light bulbs is something that doesn't even require a second thought to it. Once it's done it's done and that bulb lasts longer than a normal light bulb and yet people refuse to use them. It is quite irritating.