I'm not going to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
Perhaps better is the image
http://www.newlook.com.sg/img/skinlife1.jpg - specifically the 'no treatment' curve. Note how there is a long slow buildup, known as a lag phase, leading to a sharper uptick - the spot between the two would historically correlate to the industrial revolution, arguably the first
technological singularity in recorded history. The advent of language could also be one, but predates recorded history, being a prerequisite to recorded history. Right now, we're at the top of the peak, where it's slightly overshot the sustainable level on the graph, and dips down to that point (or often, a bit below, in bacterial populations the number spikes, and dips, and comes back to a sustainable level from slightly below). Current population trends suggest that the rate of growth is
decelerating, and the population will begin to trend slightly downwards over decades. What makes this different from bacterial population studies is that we have a vested interest in not having a population crash that may destabilize the infrastructure and make the crash self-sustaining.
Yes, abortion is probably a bad issue to focus on compared to ... preventing the largest mass starvation event in the history of history, (and it gets worse when you bring up the abortion-as-population-control argument and worse
still when you bring up China's implementation) but I am convinced that the problem requires a gentler hand than many advocate. I also believe that technological solutions can provide a lot of the change we need, boost the ailing economy, and provide other benefits if we can invest wisely where it is needed. For example, improved HID lamp ballasts that eliminate warm-up times would allow commercial and industrial lighting to be turned off when it's not needed, instead of leaving it on so as to avoid half-hour warmups and lost productivity. It saves businesses money, the planet power, and those are only the two most immediately obvious benefits. Streetlights that come on immediately in a storm could perhaps save lives otherwise lost to auto accidents? I dunno. Commercial lighting uses 5-10% of global energy, and this single development could probably shave a couple percent all by itself.
I mean, you hear all about behavioral solutions - and I'm not saying they're actively
bad, so much as they're not enough and might direct attention away from where it really needs to be. I'm sure you've heard that you should unplug your phone charger in order to cut its' vampire current draw. That's all well and good, but the draw at idle on a representative SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM charger is less than a twentieth of a watt, according to Kill-A-Watt tests. Contrast this with something like 2,000,000 watt hours per person (at least in the UK) and you see the perspective of these little things.
I'm not writing off vampire power as a problem, but it's one better solved by engineers than unplugging your home entertainment center (this might draw as much as a hundred watts while 'off'! Not only do you have to pay for that power, but you have to cool that waste heat away with air conditioning in hot climates) and having to reprogram it every time you then want to watch TV.