At present, Earth is an "ecological disaster." Major natural ecosystems that remained largely intact at around 10,000 BC are largely relicts. We need to get back to that sustainable homeostasis, and we have the technology, the morality, and the intelligence to do it.

As for how to make a 1000 year pattern persist? Change the Culture.

The Teachings of Jesus emerged more than 2000 years ago and have not just 'hung in there,' they have spread, persisted, and come to thrive.

I also have a problem with your "teachings of Jesus" cultural analogy.  Firstly, I did not say that cultures cannot continue for thousands of years, only that I'm skeptical that cultures which advocate (or at least are successful at this) depopulation can exist for thousands of years.  You've mentioned that several societies throughout history have chosen to limit their populations.  Could you mention a few?  Not that I don't believe you, I'd just like to be able to comment on them and compare them with our (western) society and discover how long they lasted with this policy in place. 

Population Policy Dilemmas in Europe at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century- Paul Demeny

I'm not sure who this guy is and if it supports either of our sides but it seems apt to the discussion.  I think you'd at least find it interesting Scip.

As for "populations that have willingly restricted their growth: virtually all the industrial powers underwent the Demographic Transition back in the 19th century, and many other nations are undergoing it today.

Part of this is couples having fewer children.

I think I now see what it is I need to write my book on . . . hope you guys don't mind if I try out different ideas on youze.

Thing about being in higher education for about 22 years straight: you stop perceiving what normal people automatically know in an instant with your head up in the clouds. Maybe that is why so many times my posts on here seem to end threads? Engaged to post some more, but a bit tired tonight.

As for whether "more people = more environmental degradation," being debatable, you are likely correct that there is a fundamental debate there. But I'll be if I set about collecting the evidence, I can formulate a very cogent argument that more people will (all else being equal) always lead to more environmental degradation.

 . . . wow, finally 1BC might just prove to be a seed-bed for something that can go on my CV

ADDIT: one point I should make: I might argue pretty heavily in favor of declining population sizes, and my 'intuition' is strongly leaned in that direction. But in honesty, I have not yet done all the background work that I sincerely know I need to do to reach the 99% confidence interval (let alone the 95%). I will with skepticism acknowledge that technology might even allow bigger and BIGGER populations to create better, and BETTER human-natural ecological sustainability. But I'm highly, HIGHLY dubious of such an hypothesis in any short- to medium-term time-frame, which I do believe is the time-frame that needs to be considered.

Some of these "Global Warming" guys on here I know detest me because I'm a fly in their ointment. But I do agree heartily with them that we need to be highly 'up in arms' about the state of Earth's natural ecologies. I am just skeptical that it can be such a simplified story as "human industrializtion=global warming: therefore, reduce carbon emissions = silver bullet."

I think most of the actual environmental problems that derive from human beings have more to do with our use of geography than anything else: habitat loss, riverine sequestration, etc.

Anyway, anyone who is keen to get in on this, I want to invite you to speak your mind. It will help me in actually moving forward on the book. And I need to write the book to decide which hypothesis seems more tenable (a) Jerm's "Technology Can/Will Save Us" hypothesis or my own (b) There are too many of us hypothesis.

ADDIT: thought this was appropos, Malaysian Girl having Fun at MMU University

Guys, I still don't think you are even really getting my point on this, which maybe is a good sign that it might really be a controversial book.

Currently there are nearly 7 billion human beings 7,000,000,000. Through most of human natural history, that figure probably hovered in the millions.