>> (OP) the agriculture needed to feed the amount of people on the planet doesn't seem like it will survive
> (you) The earth is getting greener, rapidly. The maximum human carrying capacity is probably higher
The actual myth (read beyond the title):
"CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow"
As I understand this exchange, you've challenged the claim that climate change will negatively impact agriculture by pointing out that Earth is getting greener, supported by yours
> Hint: The green stuff is food, for either humans or animals humans can eat.
The page I've linked debunks exactly this.
> A specific plant’s response to excess CO2 is sensitive to a variety of factors, including but not limited to: age, genetic variations, functional types, time of year, atmospheric composition, competing plants, disease and pest opportunities, moisture content, nutrient availability, temperature, and sunlight availability. The continued increase of CO2 will represent a powerful forcing agent for a wide variety of changes critical to the success of many plants, affecting natural ecosystems and with large implications for global food production. The global increase of CO2 is thus a grand biological experiment, with countless complications that make the net effect of this increase very difficult to predict with any appreciable level of detail.
> Sure, humans do that until they industrialize, then they slow down.
Overshoot is not only about population, but also about consumption and pollution.
Not my claim. We also have plenty of fossil fuels to put into the Haber process until we transition into fusion, even if that's in the distant future.
> The Human Ecology of Overshoot: Why a Major ‘Population Correction’ Is Inevitable
> Homo sapiens has evolved to reproduce exponentially
Sure, humans do that until they industrialize, then they slow down.