Too much to ask, right?  

In our case, all resources are finite.  So you know you will run into trouble in ten years, or ten million years.  Which is it?  You watch and see.  Well before it happens you should be making your plans to recognize it and switch out when you need to.  

But really, everything we are arguing about was predicted decades ago, sometimes centuries.  That's why I used the word "willful."  

To be specific, the troubles we are in right now were perfectly plain by the 1970s.  We did not seek to switch out, even then:  We raced at the cliff.  

If yeast do that, that is their problem.  But when WE do that, it is OUR problem.  

Now I am not arguing you are wrong--or at least, not always wrong, but since there certainly are peoples who did not follow our path it would be good to know how they did it--what their mind was.  

You can certainly do better than logistic growth--if it leads to destruction--by anticipating that.  You do not have to limit yourself to responding to first derivatives, and then discovering afterward that you have walked into a dead-end box.  

I don't see how it fails to represent human collective behaviour  

Well, it predicts some human behavior, particularly OUR human behavior, but since we are destroying ourselves perhaps the model is fine as a description of us but very bad as advice.  That is, it describes well precisely what we should not do.  We should do something else.  

It would be better to follow a model that does not lead to self-destruction, even if self-destruction can be modeled very well.  

I don't believe in master planning,  

Anyone who does not do their own master planning is courting trouble--this is true for individuals and groups.  Plans have to be flexible to work.  But if they do not exist, they certainly don't work.  

The Fates are kind.