I've not read it but I just checked it out and I pretty much agree with his historical and political analyses, I've long held much of this view too. Another example would be the collapse of Angkor in Cambodia.
However he doesn't make just an this observation, he has a opinion and a bias too.
His opinion is as an environmentalist this is a terrible thing and we should reform our society to stop it and as a scientist he makes an enlightenment bias we are rationally choosing to do destroy our world and can rationally control our behaviour.
To address the second point, he analysed many human societies, and drew a conclusion from looking at them. I will extend it to animal societies. Chimpanzee and gorilla groups, packs of wolves and so on. These share the same tendency as us to use up resources, to war over territory in the name of resources, to outgrow the food supply and even move on to more lush pastures or experience rapid depopulation. So the scientific enlightenment bias that we are doing it rationally is wrong. Animals are not doing it from reason, they are doing it because they are animals simply behaving like animals, and that's what we are too, animals. We will over exploit our environment because that's what we animals do, we will use it up because that's what we animals do, and we will collapse our civilisation and rapidly depopulate because that's what we animals do and we have no rational control over this as animals behaving exactly as animals do.
On his first point, after what I just said there is no point being an environmentalist at all. We may just as well consume, waste and enjoy while the supply lasts.