They're not thinking. But thinking isn't the problem.
They have a set of requirements as figureheads of "a system" of encumbrance.
The system "rewards" growth, is "blind" to energy costs, and completely disregard "ecological damage", which by definition is uncounted and therefore invisible to "the economy".
There is only 1 outcome to this system, As is.
A living tree
A living whale
Clean Air
None of these things are priced for. So we live now at the tail end of a dead planet, a dead ocean, and unbreathable pollution.
You really got a flair for the dramatic you know that TP... Honestly you are dead wrong here, sure we're definitely not doing our due diligence as humans to protect Earth but think about all the planet & life has survived before we were even close to evolving. If they can survive massive meteoroid impacts, flood basalts, the complete chemical remake of the atmosphere, etc. I think it'll do just fine with whatever we can throw at it. The planet & life itself will be around long after we've wiped ourselves out. I am not condoning the damage we have done to the planet & it's ecosystems that are currently around, but I am pointing out the fact that you are grossly overstating what the fall out of humans on this planet will be. At this point we really don't know how much or how little of climate change is due to our activities, we just know we're contributing to the changes we are seeing. Let's not forget even right now we're still technically at the end of the last ice age & Earth has been historically way hotter than it is right now, that the oxygen we breathe was an extinction level event for most life on the planet when it was made by the first life that used photosynthesis, etc. I honestly doubt we could do enough damage before wiping ourselves out to effect the planet & life on it for more than a few hundred years.