I think that Mother Nature, in its infinite pragmatism, abides by a simple general formula: as success, knowledge, and resources increase in any given place, birthrates diminish to offset what could be a dangerous baby boom, thus conserving resources and ensuring a brighter future for the offspring
I would think it was backwards. Population explosions happen with everything when there is plenty of resources. People have an added feature over most of the rest of the population of life on this planet, we can contemplate our situation from past results, present conditions, and future expectations. If there was rational thinking involved, people voluntarily would slow the birthrate because they felt there wasn't resources to continue, not because they felt they had everything they needed. One third of the food produced in the world is thrown away every year, that would be enough to solve the food shortage without producing more. A rational solution that would make the situation even worse.
Modern day, technologically developed societies have had declining birth rates ever since records were started on the subject. Societies playing catch up don't have declining birth rates. Since the number of new births is starting to decrease on a global scale, as evidenced by the slowing of the global population increase, it could be reasoned that the number of people in well technologically developed is coming up to a 50/50 ratio with the not so technologically developed societies. The interaction of the two parts has to be taken into any accounting of what might happen next. It would seem logical that until everyone is on the same playing field, we can't know if having too much is an incentive to reproduce less, or just a temporary brake that won't hold once things level off. Declining birthrates in technologically advanced societies could be the ultimate cause and effect of replacing workers with substitutes. The population number is so large that even without any additional increases, there are still too many situations that are out of control that should be addressed to insure a successful life for everything involved. With all the ups and downs the human race has had, the population has always steadily increased in the long run. Even if things go wrong, we will start up again, and if we totally fail, there are so many waiting in line to take our place. From our point of view that wouldn't be good, from Mother Nature's point of view, we're just another face in the crowd.
Gaia theory takes the entire planet into account. It also doesn't use abundance as a sign for stopping productions. It uses lack of resources as a wall to act as a brake, which is usually applied long after the boulder has seemingly successfully rolled down hill. Look at Gaia like it's a circular pattern, with the functional stuff swirling about in the center of the circle. The inner circle is what Mother Nature protects, the rest is a disposable/replaceable/not really needed phone skin. The small stuff is what makes all life possible on the planet. That would be anything part of the biogeochemical cycles. Which is only the small stuff. Without the small stuff there would be no big stuff. Without the big stuff there will still be the small stuff. In other words people are not part of the Gaia program, we are completely optional, like flower petals but not even that, more like an optional species that arose out of a game of chance. We imitate Gaia but we are not required for it's continued operation.
The phones are built around pushing the buttons which push our mental buttons that keep us on line for one reason only. The longer we stay on line the higher the advertising rates can be charged. Because we have monetized everything that becomes the most important reason. There are all kinds of ramifications pouring out of the phones running the entire range from good to indifferent to bad. The more money handled the more monetized our thinking becomes. The smaller the device the easier it is to take it with us. You can even wear it on your arm like a data pump. Both actions fulfilling the rules of a system that promises unattainable rewards for desired behavior.
I recently drew a picture that showed a phone stuck on on a persons neck, it replaced the head. On the phone screen was a picture of ice and there was a bunch of people with their heads stuck in the frozen ice (stuck in the sand but ostriches never do that in real life) and their feet waving around in the air. The picture can be interpreted at least 2 ways. One thought is, phones aren't so good, you can get your head stuck in the phone. The other is that no matter where people physically are (where your feet have taken us) we can all easily meet up any time we want in one single place, inside the phone. This illustrates mixed signals, one man's disaster is another man's opportunity. Which has to do with the idea that warning signs for one group is to the go ahead for another group. The more uncertain the signage as it applies to the time, I think the more likely we would see a 50/50 split. Which means even knowing the outlook is bad, not everyone is going to interpret the news as a signal to stop.
