"Many life forms have become extinct over the life of our little planet and the planet survived. Humans are just another life form,but different in that we have the power to understand how we are destroying the natural resources which make it possible for us to exist. I am confident that the planet will look after itself even if if has to get rid of us."

I agree entirely with you.

But it would be a damn shame for all the good things that human beings have achieved, such as our insights into the hidden working of the cosmos and life, to be lost forever through the greed and short sightedness of probably a minority of us.

Judging by the overwhelming positive response to Dick Smith and the over population issue.

@GregaryB: Therefore in the vast majority of cases in the animal world, the 'fittest' are the biggest, strongest and most aggressive.

I just came across another counter example. It is possible to set up an environment where the weakest, least aggressive individuals of a species are favoured:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/06/evolving-bacteria-through-a-game-of-rock-paper-scissors.ars

"I just came across another counter example. It is possible to set up an environment where the weakest, least aggressive individuals of a species are favoured:"

If there are indeed genuine examples of this then it is the rare exception rather than the rule.

At the moment I suppose the bankers and weapons manufacturers are the people who have the most power in the human race and they do not seem to be using the power wisely. They will retain this power until other humans with a different set of values removes it from them.
Unless we become smart enough to live in harmony with our planet we may not be around for long enough to learn from our mistakes, one of the mistakes is too many humans.

As the survival of mankind - in a world reasonably intact and worthy of habitation - would appear to rely on co-operation and compromise, it would seem that "Natural Selection" in our case would be best to operate in favour of clear thinking rather than the application of brute force. History will of course reveal the outcome of the inevitable contest between these two competing fundamental valencies of Man's underlying "nature".

The solution to world overpopulation may be as simple as "connecting" with the breadth of mankind, and "communicating". As profound as man's capacity is for selfishness, there is good reason to believe that mankind shares an even greater capacity for compassion and understanding, when sharing a common challenge. Our current challenge may be the greatest opportunity for the employment of "group think" in the inglorious history of mankind, and perhaps an ultimate opportunity for redemption.

Civilisation is not an ultimate goal of evolution and, from a biological perspective, it is irrlevant to the process of evolution whether humans survive as a part a complex enlightened civilisation or as bands of savages constantly waring with each.

Civilisations have developed as a response to growing numbers of people in a given region and the need to regulate access to limited resources.

Every civilisation to date has collapsed when the number of humans has grown to the point of destabilising it. Humans have then returned to bands of savages for an extended period of time until the ecological damage has been repaired and the region can once again sustain larger numbers. Or the remaining humans have simply moved on to other areas.

What is at issue here is not the survival of the human race, but the survival of western civilisation that we all value reagrdless of its many faults.