Wow! Talk about reaching! I gave a single example of how things actually work, and you go on about Darwin and countries, etc. Mankind has exceeded natural boundaries worldwide, thereby throwing the balance out in so many ways.

So, according to your rapturous celebration of Darwinian theory, where only the strong survive, then it's ok for the strongest countries to maintain a stranglehold over the poorer, developing ones, because they are not strong enough, and full of diseases, and therefore when these countries, who are riddled with SARS, Bird Flu, Men C, Dengue, Malaria, fail in the face of the stronger, developed countries, the human race will be stronger and fitter.
I was talking about nature, not countries. Did I really rapturously celebrate Darwin's theory? I didn't think I even mentioned it. I only talked about what the Eskimos believe God did. What you are talking about is the equivalent of eradicating all the keribou because wolves are stronger, if you really want to compare what I said to what countries do under Darwin's theory. Please don't try to change what I say. Your analogy of what I said is very far fetched.

... The world's ecosystem isn't that simple. ...
I know it isn't that simple. I was giving a single example for simplicity because I didn't want to write a 4 page report on the subject. Have you ever heard the phrase, "A word to the wise is sufficient"?

Humans, it could be argued, have overpopulated, but this over population is occuring in the poor, less developed countries - according to your Darwinian analogy, they are the ones who therefore get killed off in order to 'strengthen the herd' of the human race....?
I was not making a Darwinian analogy. I was stating an Eskimo belief in God. It isn't about strong countries killing weaker countries. It wasn't keribou killing other keribou. It was wolves killing the sick and dying keribou. Human kind does not subscribe to Darwin's theory any more. We coddle our handicapped, and spend billions on trying to fix various genetic maladies, where as in centuries past, those who had those problems would have died. We now have the capability to keep alive those who would normally die. We also have the capability to kill off species that would have normally survived, and we are doing so in wholesale numbers.

I was just arguing the polar bear point and nothing more. Everywhere in nature, you can see some example of predator/prey in balance. If the food is plentiful, the eaters increase in population. If food becomse scarce, the eaters tend to decrease reproducing accordingly. There are lots of examples of humans meddling in natural balances. Australia had rabbits introduced, but there were not enough predators to control the population, so they bred like, um, rabbits.

When nature does it, it usually works out harmoniously. When we get involved, things tend to get thrown out of wack. Polar bears don't affect the environment negatively, since they're part of the whole balance. Saudis drilling oil so we can use it for various methods of polution does have an impact.

I'm going to stop now.