Hmm... interesting argument. I think it's slightly flawed though. Here's the flaw: that word "natural".... what does that mean exactly? Seems to me, you're kinda unnecessarily "restricting" the scope of that word a little -

I mean, lemme give you an example - a "scenario" - you know it's a few years in the future (50? 100?) and we have "over-population", but we also have space travel and advances in genetic technology. So, like, "some" people are suggesting, that what we oughta do policy-wise, is the China approach, you know, restrict everyone to having "just one kid", and that way food supplies and government resources don't get scarce, that kinda thing...

And then the other half, are gonna be screaming, "no, that's coercion, just let us leave earth, we'll go to the nearest inhabitable planet" - you know, they're gonna opt in favor of "opportunity", instead of making the "sacrifice" of having only one kid -

And then, I mean, while all this is going on, we're "genetically programming" ourselves, and everything else under the sun. You know, we're sticking new genes in tomatos already, so they won't rot as fast, and I mean, every single tomato you get at McDonald's or any of the other fast food places is genetically engineered that way, you know.... and it's only a matter of ten years before we can actually do that to people....

So I mean, "natural", right? What's the next "natural" step in biological evolution? Jack your brain directly into the "network"? Would that give "us" a biological advantage, over, say, invaders from Mars?

See what I mean?