Are we evil?

[Zrak]

I said nearly all humans have the capability of understanding the concept of sustainability. Surely you are among them.

I am. In fact, I understand several concepts of sustainability. What I do not understand is to which of those conceptions, if any, you are referring. Hence my request for you to provide a concrete definition for your use of the term, preferably one that's based in observable behaviors rather than further abstractions or conjectures about fundamentally unknowable aspects of animal cognition. Also, what exactly is your argument from that definition, in terms of scale, scope, and universality; are you saying that other species engage in no "sustainable life practices" or merely that not all of their life practices are sustainable?

All other animal life will, without outside factors limiting their growth, reproduce and spread until there is not enough of whatever their source of energy is to sustain their population, at which point they will experience a catastrophic collapse. Most animals (read: all fauna that isn't human) have no understanding of this concept - they cannot plan for it. As intelligent as dolphins or elephants or bonobos are, without some limitations preventing it, they will not intentionally leave some of their food source alive to ensure more grows for next year. That's sustainability - not increasing your resource requirements to the point where nature can no longer keep up to your demand.

So, to be sure I'm understanding you correctly, is "intentionally leav[ing] some of their food source alive to ensure more grows next year" an example of a sustainable life practice, or is that your definition of sustainable life practices as a behavioral category? In either case, would you accept that a species which leaves some of its food supply intact for the following year, absent evidence of an external cause forcing them to do so, is engaging in a sustainable life practice? If not, why not?

However, humans have reacted in a way unique among other animal species. As our mortality dropped, our lifespans expanded, and our prosperity grows ... our birthrate dropped.

This is not unique. Like, at all.

Sustainability is not a philosophical idea. It's logic, math, and ... perhaps most importantly... economics. It's about consumption not outstripping our means of replacement.

So it's the confluence of several philosophical ideas? None of which, apparently, comes from ecology?
Also, if sustainability is about consumption not outstripping the means of replacement, aren't all life practices in which consumption does not outstrip the means of replacement sustainable? If not, why not?