Here's a fascinating thought experiment: what if we set aside half the planet for wildlife?
It sounds like a pipe dream, too radical to consider seriously; humans, after all, have spread into every comfortable corner of the earth, and our population will only continue to rise. But the eminent biologist and conservationist
E. O. Wilson believes that it's the best way to preserve biodiversity on this planet, and that it can be done:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-world-really-set-aside-half-planet-wildlife-180952379/This would require, unsurprisingly, drastically reshaping the way we (as a species) consider the use of land and resources. Humanity has a fascination with the idea that we are the undisputed and rightful masters of the planet, that everything on this Earth is ours for the taking, consequences be damned. It's an incredibly shortsighted view, of course. From the first agricultural societies that learned to let certain fields lie fallow, to the English monarchs who decided to replant ship-worthy trees so that their heirs could build a navy to conquer half the world, to Theodore Roosevelt and his national parks, people have always recognized the value of safeguarding natural resources for future use and enjoyment.
E. O. Wilson's idea is really just taking the concept of a national park to a new level, albeit with judicious application of eminent domain and large-scale zoning laws. It wouldn't be the first time a government relocated groups of people in order to facilitate a greater national good, and this would be a much better cause than some of the previous incidences could claim. (I'm tempted to make some joke about flyover country, here.)
Even though the concept seems, in human terms, to be just a very large national park, its effect on our ecosystems is exponentially greater than that of our extant national parks. One mustn't underestimate the positive effects that uninterrupted migratory patterns would have on bolstering animal populations, especially those that are more sensitive to seasonal changes (and therefore more likely to be endangered in the first place). This scheme would revert, to the extent possible, a swath of land to its "original" state, before humanity molded it to suit our civilizations -- the state of nature, optimized for a balanced ecosphere. For all that we have done to alter the environment, that it would be possible to rectify the greater part of the damage we've caused in these parts, is itself no small feat.
We have reached a juncture after which the biodiversity of the planet will become increasingly more difficult to retain and salvage. Though Wilson's proposal is drastic, it is still, without a great stretch of the imagination, within our grasp. Some things are worth the cost -- surely the Earth is among them.