> Actually, it is possible due to the use of fossil fuels.  If you trace

The mechanism through which we are growing is irelevant. As long as the system
is functioning, then the limit has not been reached. The system may break in
the future, but that is a different matter.

> LOL.  Over the years, if half the people have 2 children, and half have
> none, you get
> to the same place.

Which, on average, is exactly one child per person. Which is what I said.
And why should some people be having no children at all ? Has their perfect
paleo diet damaged their reproductive health ? The people having zero
children will not pass on any of their genetic material, whilst the people
having more than one will. And as this material includes the propensity to
have more than one child, the population will soon aquire this
characteristic, the exact opposite of what is required for zero population
growth.

If you study biological systems, you will see that none of them ever aim for a
steady state population. All living things attempt to maximise their
reproductive success, through different strategies, and indeed, this idea is
central to the concept of evolution, reproductive success being the
definition of evolutionary fitness. Of course, if you are a creationist......
no I won't start that !