On one hand you're saying that overpopulation will never be a serious problem, but on the other you're saying that you don't know anything more than you can extrapolate from currently existing technologies. So how can you say that it will never be a problem? You admit that you cannot predict the future. It seems like "I don't know whether overpopulation will never be a serious problem" would be more accurate.

Elsewhere you say, "It is also not a faith-based position to recognize that if we have already shifted from resources, such as coal to oil, we can do it again." That's induction, but it's a very weak induction and would be reasonable if your claim were limited to, say, the next 50 years. But you're making a claim about "never", about human history on and on for the end of time. That requires faith. It would be like saying, "Humanity has for thousands of years has had horrific wars, but for the past 60 years have been really peaceful, so we should never, ever expect another major war ever in human history" - which is absurd. We're in a remarkably stable period of history at the moment, but to believe that it will last forever has no basis and is only possible with an extremely selective reading of history. Claiming overpopulation and famine will never ever be a problem again is of the same mold.

Eventually we'll encounter another large exogenous or endogenous shock: like another Toba volcanic explosion (the last time this happened, humanity was reduced to about 1,000-3000 members) or somebody launching a nuclear EMP taking out an entire coast of the US or half of Europe. We are not all self-sufficient farmers: we now live in incredibly interdependent webs, and all it takes for a shock that's large enough to destabilize the web. The possibility of another super-volcanic explosion could cause widespread famine, which would be deeply exacerbated by a large population. And we have never had scientific command of plate tectonics, so what do we have to defend ourselves against such a possibility?