I'm giving you 30 claps for a good presentation of your viewpoint. Even though I disagree with most of your arguments.

This debate is not new. Have you read the book "The Wizard and the Prophet"?

The book is about the "fathers" of the environmental movement and the Green Revolution—respectively William Vogt and Norman Borlaug. It is written by Charles Mann, also the author of "1491".

You are essentially arguing the same "prophet" position that Vogt took in the 1920's and 1930's. Vogt is not remembered at all today because Borlaug's research spawned the "Green Revolution" in agriculture and the famines Vogt predicted never happened.

The Wizards won that argument, technology did make it possible to feed 8 billion people. People like you, were wrong. At least in the short term (last 70 years) anyway.

But, when you go down the Wizard's path you wind up living in a highly artificial environment. I completely agree with you on that point.

The survival of about five billion people now hinges on the production of synthetic fertilizers. This is an insanely artificial and fragile condition.

If that production is curtailed or halted billions will rapidly die. It is the choke-point of our entire world order.

However, while we completely agree on the danger of the current situation we disagree on the path forward. You, and others taking the "Prophet" position, like to use the aseptic term "ecological overshoot" instead of overpopulation.

Because no one likes the idea that 5 billion people have to die to get back to the "balanced" ecology you are advocating for. That's why your arguments are unpopular.

It's not because we are stupid and hopped up on "hopium". We understand exactly what you are saying. You might even be right, personally I think we are looking at a 50% population die-back by 2100.

But no sane person wants to live through that.