One thing I have learnt from life is that if 'we' don`t adapt to changing conditions, Gaia will soon correct us. Many species have faced change in the past by extinction, adaptation or moving geologically. With arable land declining due to construction, overusage or the current threat, lack of water, where will populations move to?
With essential minerals exploited (and wasted) by the human race, can substitutes fill the gap? Tin is a finite resource for canning, so we change to plastics. Which are usually petroleum-based. Oil supplies seem to be limited, yet we are reluctant to expand to alternative energy sources in a major way. Which won`t help products based on petroleum when that runs low.
We over-apply fertilisers, pesticides to crops and let the surplus poison the majority of water systems. In the poorer countries, slash-and-burn continues to lay waste increasing areas with few restrictions on farmers. And who can blame them? They are just trying to survive. Eventually, Gaia will provide the wall of no returns.
Even the seas of the world are facing declining catches in spite of their size and prolificacy. Any responsible moves by fishermen to limit their catches? Nope, they just move into deeper or more unpalatable species.
So, regardless of well-meaning efforts to change our wasteful ways and live lives adjusted to a balance between need and availability, mankind will proceed to the point where we either kill each other in a fight for resources, or we may try to rope in both our population and our consumption. Either way, Gaia will triumph. Another pesky species reined in. Evolution in action.
With our track record, I can`t see the sensible approach winning. I know which side I`m betting on.
Edited by Nighttrain, : Clarification