An impressive article, even if I think it is wrong, thanks for posting.

First reason I think it is wrong is that whilst you got it right that increasing life is the way ahead, you have not accounted for ultimate energy. All life has to have access to adequate energy. The secret of increasing life, all life, is to increase the energy available to it. That means putting more solar to use than nature currently does. There is no way around that, unfortunately, being that the sun is the only actual source of energy, rather than fuel, which is what we get from Earth, which again has to come at cost to some party or another, by it being consumed in a way others can't have any.

The likely effects on the energy of Earth, of damming the med, would be distruption of many of the natural flows of water around the planet, such as the Gulf Stream.

Without the Gulf stream, London would have a climate more like Moscow, for example. I don't think we would be very happy about that in UK.

In all cases where damming is done, we see parties gaining vs parties losing.

The war in Sudan has this at its heart, due to the recent damming of the Nile.

Imagine how much worse the chaos would be, if a body of water as big as the med was to be dammed. We would have war all over Europe, surely.

Without taking the energy of the sun into account, everything we do on Earth is a zero sum game in which there always has to be winners and losers.

But it doesn't have to be that way, we have the technology now to do otherwise, and even to reduce the load on the conventional food-chain, allowing this to recover (See "Solein" - note the input energy ingredient is hydrogen), as well as to circulate clean drinking water.

A solar hydrgoen economy fixes all problems, I think.