Yes. This is what happens with human societies without technology. This also happens in animal populations. As we are seeing now, when a society reaches a certain level of technology and medical care that ensures a very high infant survival rate, population growth tapers off and can stagnate. That's the way you prevent overpopulation.

The idea we can restrict breeding when we've regressed in technology is just a way to ensure genocide through sterilization, killing infants, punishing parents, and the other ways we've seen humans try this very thing. It doesn't work and leads to ethnic cleansing and terrible abuse by the elite classes. It's like suggesting we use eugenics: it doesn't work.

That's the part everybody seems to be glossing over. These stones were supposed to be read by a burgeoning society post apocalypse, not our current world with 8 billion people. The non-existent world these stones speaks to would contain presumably less than the 500,000,000 people its author states is the maximum, and acts as a warning along the lines of ‘don't destroy the Earth's environment like we did, that's what lead to our downfall, too many people’. Not to say that take is correct or not, just what I thought when reading about the stones the first time. Seems like environmentally political rhetoric to me.

Imagine believing in a world where 90% of the human population is annihilated by some calamity, and the survivors have the psychological capacity to focus on anything other than basic survival and repopulation.

Utopian fantasyland. Believing things like this requires deliberate ignorance of the nature of human beings and pretty much all of human history. It's magical thinking

We are nature.

Were the cyanobacteria responsible for the oxygen crisis guilty? Plants contributed to the first of the five major recognized extinction events: https://www.sciencealert.com/the-arrival-of-tree-roots-may-have-triggered-mass-extinctions-in-the-ocean

The first major difference with us is that we're capable of being aware of how our presence changes the environment, and therefore of changing our behavior. So I think you think both too highly and not well enough of us.

Most incest involves rape. Prohibitions are sensible.

Bans on breeding based on a belief of genetic inferiority of potential offspring is eugenics. Don't do that.

2 week old post, dude.