I'm afraid I can not agree with the statement even a bit. The writer has a logical fallacy thinking that all things are equal. First, some species may still extinct without human effects, due to climatical changes. However most species die of artificial factors, and the extinction numbers are tremendous compared with previous times. So no human being can extenuate his responsibility.
Since then, we must try our best to reduce the negative influences on nature. Further more, a great cost in money and jobs is necessary. The money is spent in pursuing sustainbale development and thus leave a beautiful and kaleidoscopic earth to our offsprings. Many people can find jobs in animal and environmental protection, their efforts are beneficial to human being.
We must also save those species which are otherwisely eliminated by nature for many reasons: moral, aesthetic and potential values.
So it is onus of us to protect endangered species, no matter how much money or efforts, and whether they are dwindling naturally or not.