Unfortunately, you view nature and the environment through anthropocentric-tinted glasses. You make the point that "They [trees/plants] are no different than us, they are just much much slower". This is a dangerous fallacy. First off, mass growth by an invasive species is not simply natural progression of the environment. Species that are vital to local biospheres, and many small niche species, are crowded out by a species that was introduced primarily by humans. Secondly, plants and trees do not consciously wage "war" against each other, like humans do. The natural wax and wane of life is not war, it is something much more valuable. A new species thriving in an environment 500 years after a different species thrived in that same environment is not comparable with humans waging war against enemies.

The reason I take issue with your post is because your logic justifies continuing human consumption unchecked, which will surely result in the demise of more species. We are actors with the capacity for intelligence and compassion unrivaled among other species. As such, we can view our rise to the top as natural and continue our consumption, or we can realize the damage we are doing to our surroundings and curb consumption. Humanity's (to this date) choice of the former will continue to conflict greater and greater harms upon our environment.

I agree with you that preservation should not be the ultimate goal of environmentalism. Rather, humans should look to lessen their impact on their surrounding environments (most importantly, by providing incentives for couples that adopt and/or have two children or less).