The only thing is this world that we can't make more of is uranium 235, everything else is negotiable.
All populations grow exponentially until they reach the carrying capacity of their ecological niche whereupon the population will plateau. Our population is no different, with the sole exception of our unique inherent ability to expand the carrying capacity of our niche, as expounded upon already. Our population growth has been steady and natural with the lone blip of the black death.
Understand, we don't live on oil, or wheat or trees, we live on energy and energy is conserved, always. As long as we can master energy, we are free to convert it to which ever form we like, as much as we like, for as long as we like. Chemical, kinetic, electrical, it doesn't matter, it's all just energy.
To emphasize, we created the farmland, we need more, we make more. In the western world we created the forrests, we need more we create more. It's all just energy.
Finally we are the top of the food chain, our food chain, that we engineer and bred and cultivated. None of it would remain if we disappeared, we could eat something else but they couldn't survive without us, they've been bred not to. None of us are parasites, we are just animals, nothing more or less, doing what comes naturally to us.
I do however agree that the Earth is perfectly indiferent to whatever lifeforms or climate happens upon it, any opinions one way or the other are entirely held by the dominant sentient species upon said planet.

I think we're getting our wires crossed again, or else you're just trying to be argumentative. It starts to get tedious trying to explain my points rather than make my points. If we're getting our wires crossed then I will try to explain myself better. If you're just being argumentative let me know so I don't waste my time trying to explain myself.
A very mild form of living in harmony with nature would be the Alaskan pipeline. One of the conditions of the pipeline was that it be elevated so that it wouldn't restrict the migration of wildlife. Of course another condition of the pieline was the use of double-hulled oil tankers to prevent the possibility of a spill, which the oil companies blatantly violated with the use of the single-hulled Exxon Valdez!
Mankind is at the top of the food chain because of intelligence. Along with this intelligence however is ego and greed. Killing an animal for food is one thing. Killing a million animals for greed or sport is completely different. Clearing land for food is one thing. Polluting land just because it's cheaper than properly disposing of toxic waste is another. Caring more about profit margin than you do about the repercussions of your actions is a recipe for disaster. Believing that just because we are entitled to do what we want to this planet at the expense of every other species is the ultimate in egotism, and unless we correct this line of thinking it will eventually lead to the demise of Mankind. Unlike animals we have the ability to evaluate our actions and make choices to control the consequences of our actions and a little bit of forward thinking, another trait that we have that the animals don't, we can make this planet a great place to live for all species.
Don't get me wrong I'm not a tree hugging nature lover. I prefer to walk on a concrete side walk than a dirt trail, but I acknowledge that REASONABLE efforts should be made to maintain a symbiotic relationship with nature.

How about we cut our technology back to the bare minumum, which would reduce our energy use as well? I'm serious. Candles instead of lightbulbs, smaller TVs would help even. In fact, we could have a pair of VR googles each instead of a TV. Two LCD screens fitting over the eyes to give full 3D vision. A small LCD screen for our computers. Lower power computers. Go back to using wood fires and ovens.

I don't know about going that far, but with respect to lighting, minimizing incandescents and maximizing CFL bulbs and LED's would be a significant improvement. I don't see technology as a bad thing, in fact there are many breakthroughs in agricultural technology that could greatly benefit the ecosystem, and in turn benefit man. The burning of wood is not the way to go, although it is "natural." Here in Phoenix in the winter time there are days that become so high in pollution that they issue restrictions in the use of fireplaces. I can just imagine what would happen in even more congested metropolitan areas if wood was burned by millions of homes! Conserving electricity is a good step to take. Cleaner, more efficient energy production is what I had in mind.

Well, perhaps if the house was insulated properly...

If you're referring to Phoenix, the houses are well insulated in order to keep them cool in the summer which of course would work as well for keeping them warm in the winter. The vast majority of fireplaces in Phoenix are frivolous, simply used for that "chesnuts roasting on an open fire" effect, but that's still enough to cause pollution problems.

So basically they're using the fire when they don't need to?

For the most part, yep. That still doesn't change the point. It doesn't take that much wood burning to cause a pollution problem. Also even if we could make wood burning practical there would be an incredible demand for wood and that would go back to stripping forests bare in order to meet demand.

Grow some more? Surely with all this extra CO2 people are complaining about in the atmosphere trees should grow quite well.

And have you seen how a Spruce burns?

A much more practical solution would be to put catalytic converters on coal power stations. Along these lines I wonder about sequestering some of the CO2 in the oceans. If trees grow better with more CO2 ocean plant life would grow better too. This might offset the over-fishing issue as well. THIS is what I'm talking about by living in harmony with nature. Developing a symbiotic relationship with nature. If we want to fish or cut down trees fine, but find a way to not only replenish what we have taken, but increase the supply.

Wasn't I the one who said grow more fish?

More accidental plagarism. Sorry about that! It's not just the fish though. 90% of oxygen production happens in the ocean so if we can get marine plant life to grow faster that might help with the global warming as well as give the fish more to eat.

I'm pretty sure it's only 50%.