> I have an incredibly simplistic view of the future: we either embrace
> technology, or we die. The reason is simple: population. There is no
> known non-technical way to stop the population from growing, so
> any attempt to freeze technology at or below its
> current level will result in the destruction of the earth's ecosystem
> in short order: 200 years max, probably less. This is a simple
> reducto-ad-absurdum argument for technological advancement, and
> IMO anyone who argues against technological advancement must
> first have a practial solution to the population problem.
>
Perhaps you are unaware the fertility rates are declining around the
world and are well below replacement level in much of the world.(In
developed countries the average woman is only having 1.5 children.) The
population is still growing, but the rate of increase is decreasing and
the population will likely peak around 2037 at 8 billion or so.
I'm all for more advanced technology, but I don't think that it's needed
to solve any population "problem." Humans, for various reasons, are
already starting to severely limit their reproductive rates.