For clarity, my response was not about answering the question as it was posed in the thread header, (“Is the Professional Photographer becoming extinct”)
My responses were addressing the questions and implications of the OP’s text, specifically (my bold for emphasis):
“In reality I need a retirement job to ensure my super lasts me and having worked in IT for the last 24 yrs, the only other skill I have is photography and close to turning 60 once I leave my current role there is no IT opportunities at my age "We are called the un-employable"”
In that context, I considered that the OP used “professional photographer” to mean "having an adequate business to sustain a viable income".
In the absence of the OP providing details of his financial position, I gave example of a business as a Sole Trader turning over up to $75,000, which is probably in the ballpark of a viable income to be supplementary to a mean Superannuation, taken as a Life Pension.
I think that “Professional” is used to mean many things, but in this case, I think that the OP meant “making money - and not just pocket money”.
***
On the broader and general question of “Is the Professional Photographer becoming extinct” - and if asked without any specific contextual premise; I would define "Professional Photographer" as "making an income from Photography" - that income could be a secondary income, but not "a hundred dollars here and there".
WW