Yes, I understand each of these issues. What I don't get is ytzk's case for an imminent collapse of everything. He brings up examples, such as bees, bananas, or fishstocks, and can describe what might go wrong in each case, but they are independent systems - there's nothing tying them together that would cause a synchronised failure. Humanity in its current form is capable of overcoming each of these problems, as long as they don't all happen at once. And ytzk provides no reason why they should. Okay, let me try to explain why we're exempt. In your previous example of deer on an island, the deer population is dependent on the plant population. Plants are growing and reproducing by themselves, and the deer are eating them. A balancing act then ensues, and if the deer over-graze then the plant population can't replenish itself quickly enough and both the deer and the plants disappear. You draw an analogy between the deer island and humans on planet Earth, but it is not an equivalent situation. For starters, we grow our own food on purpose. If humans increase in number, the standard ecological model would predict a decrease in the chicken population, since we are their main predator. However, that is not what happens - the chickens only exist in the first place because we create them to eat. If the human demand for chicken increases, human production of chickens increases to match. This is not a natural predator/prey relationship, so trying to draw parallels doesn't make any sense. Other examples of resources don't follow the model either. There isn't a mineral population or an oil population which has growth inversely proportional to our rates of consumption. There is just a fixed amount of those things and we have to be careful not to use them all up before we can obtain suitable alternatives, on a case by case basis. At first glance it seems profound to say that humans are subject to Darwinian processes just like everything else, and it's true - we are, but we're not subject to the processes in the same way as natural populations, so simplistic comparisons are invalid, and make it look like you don't know what you're talking about. Ah, thermodynamics. The last refuge of the desperate believer. Really ytzk, this is the moment that your argument jumps the shark. So you don't like that we're destroying coral reefs. Hey, I don't like it either. I agree that we should stop doing that. But if that is your ultimate goal then I think you'd be better off extolling the virtues of coral reefs rather than trying to scare people into conservation efforts by making vague implications about a link between their destruction and a hypothetical doomsday banana virus.