That means that when science identifies environmental problems and unsustainabilities......
The good news is that has never happened and is never going to happen. There is no such thing as a "carrying capacity" for an engineering species. The planet could easily support 100 times its present human population, the whole thing is a question of infrastructure.The only problem in the picture is the Malthusians and greentards seeking to impoverish the world for the greater glory of "Gaia(TM)....
I won't say that you're completely wrong, but I don't think you're thinking it through far enough. I say this because what you're describing is something I've thought of a lot. Please bare with me while I give you my take:
The first thing you should do is consider that Earth has an established bio-geological system that's been developed and honed throughout its existence. Life's evolution is basically a process of long-term engineering where things that aren't sustainable perish and those that are still managing to operate sustainably within the larger system don't. So far, nothing has totally undermined the biosphere as a whole and reset it to start again from scratch, as far as we know anyway.
So when you think about things like desalination engineering, for example, there is a natural system for that. Sunlight is warming up ocean water and causing it to evaporate, which 'pumps' it uphill where it rains down to form all the fresh surface water, underground aquifers, etc. Knowing that nature is already desalinating water on such a large scale, tell me why it is that humans think about desalinating more instead of using the system that's already in place more efficiently?
Likewise, Earth has a fusion nuclear reactor that warms it up during the day, and it has night and winter to block out energy from that fusion reactor and allow cooling to happen. Day and night and summer and winter are effective heating and cooling systems that facilitate the survival of all species that have survived to the present day; so why are those inadequate for humans?
Now think about Earth's energy budget. You say there are no limits to what can be engineered. But look at what chlorophyll really does. Green is the most abundant frequency of sunlight, so trees and plants have actually evolved to reflect energy away more than absorbing it. Why? Because evaporation causes death and death prevents reproduction and thus survival. So Earth has actually been evolving to protect life from a hyperabundance of natural solar energy that bombards it.
Now look at what happens as a result of the energy that's not reflected away: it causes evaporation. Evaporation lifts water up into the sky and then drops it down with all the gravitational impact that was put into it to lift it up. Just like if you pick up a bowling ball and drop it on your foot, all the energy you put into lifting up the bowling ball goes into smashing your foot. It's the same with the water cycle, which causes weathering and erosion with all the energy that it absorbs from the sunlight that's not reflected away.
In addition to a water cycle, we have a carbon cycle. The carbon cycle is more complex but it works in a similar way. CO2 doesn't condense like water so its precipitation must be catalyzed. Photosynthetic plants do this so that carbon can condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere. Then animals and other consumers eat and process the plant sugars, fats, etc. into further biological products. So just as the water cycle precipitates and evaporates a lot of water that doesn't make it into underground aquifers, the carbon cycle re-evaporates a lot of CO2 back into the atmosphere and only captures a fraction of that to build up long-term fossil-fuel reservoirs
So now, you're talking about engineering additions to the water and carbon cycles that absorb more energy from the sun and/or make, use, and store more energy using other sources. Then, you want to intensify these cycles so there's more weathering and erosion from more energy. It's like you want to take Niagara Falls and add energy to it by pumping it twice as high or higher and then let it all fall back down and smash up the rocks below and wash them away to the ocean with that much more power.
So if you accelerate Earth's energy cycles in this way and thus intensify weathering and erosion, are you then also going to rebuild the land by dredging up mud from the ocean and piling it up on land? Or do you just want to build a lot of boats and ocean platforms to live on, like in the movie WaterWorld?
The more artificial industrial engineering you introduce into the biosphere, the more natural processes you overpower and have to replace. It is like taking a human body and replacing all the appendages and organs with artificial parts and systems. Do you think such an evolving cyborg will be healthier and fitter than a natural human body? Would you want to be the guinea pig and try it?
What I have learned from all this comparison of artificial engineering with the long-term evolution of self-sustaining natural systems is that we should have more respect and appreciation for the natural systems. Yes, it is good that we have developed the intelligence and skill and drive to engineer artificial systems where needed, but we should put just as much intelligence, skill, and drive/effort into minimizing the impact and footprint of our artificial systems in order to preserve as much of the long-term self-sustaining natural systems of the planet as possible.
Don't you agree that there is value in preserving nature? Don't you think human engineers still have a lot to learn from (dare I say it?) God's engineering? Can't we use our intelligence and skill to build more effective technologies that use less resources and displace less nature instead of more? Can't you see the benefit of incorporating natural 'technologies' into the 'infrastructure' that will support as many humans as necessary?
If so, I think what you'll find is that more human lives can ultimately be supported by minimizing per capita impact on the environment/resources and displacement of nature than by overdoing it.