I'll keep my fangs, and damn the government. And, damn the mindless sheep as well.
There is more to it than just that. Our civilization has allowed more and more purely physical power to be accessible by average folks --think of any 200-horsepower car as being equivalent to owning a herd of 200 horses, and think about all the work that such a herd might have done before the Industrial Revolution. Well, Power is supposed to be associated with Responsibility. It is Education that provides information about "how to use Power responsibly and ethically" --but there are always folks who either don't pay proper attention to the lessons, or don't care, because they want what they want, regardless of the consequences. Thus did the Power of three jet aircraft become misused as missiles, destroying two tall buildings and severely damaging a third large building. If the overall Trend continues, regarding accessibility of physical Power by average folks, then eventually average folks will have access to Power equivalent to an H-bomb. (Note that already lots of folks seem to have access to Modern Biological Power....) One of the proposed Answers to the Fermi Paradox is that every technological culture will eventually face a challenge regarding how to deal with such Power in the hands of ordinary small-minded selfish (and even psychotic) folks --and that most cultures don't survive that challenge. I will disagree that clamping down on Freedom is the correct solution; there are stories about "mad generals", after all. But we most certainly need a solution, and sooner rather than later.
As for fresh water, I know a significant about about desalting, and even about methods that are quite energy-efficient in accomplishing it. The energy for that still needs to come from somewhere, while all those extra people, every year, make their own demands on available energy supplies, for other purposes. Are we increasing our total power production to match population growth? NO.
Regarding synthetic fertilizer, I refer you to ammonium nitrate. Here is a relevant article. Basically, phosphates are not the only nutrients that plants need. So, the more people we need to feed, the more nutrients we need to feed plants, in order to grow food to feed people. The energy consumption associated with making ammonium nitrate can only go up, so long as population increases AND we don't want them to starve.
I see you also made the same Truly Stupid Statement made by so many others who dis the facts regarding world resources. "We have enough supplies that I know of to feed us for at least 200 years assuming our population doubles 3 times." WHAT THEN??? It is like you actively want a Malthusian Catastrophe to be as bad as possible, when it inevitably happens! To see just how stupid that attitude is, read this. Unlimited Growth Is Mathematically Incompatible With Finite Resources, Even When You Include The Entire Universe.
Growing food indoors is yet another way to consume energy (for the grow-lights). You didn't say where you expected it to come from. So now let me mention a phrase you probably don't see very often, "global thermal balance". The average temperature of Earth mostly depends on how much solar energy it receives in the daytime, and how much it radiates to space, mostly at night. If the arriving energy increases, then temperature goes up a bit, and the world tends to radiate a bit faster (maintaining that higher temperature). Likewise, if the arriving energy decreases, then temperature falls a bit, and that is also maintained. This happens every year (about a 1% change) as the world's elliptical orbit changes the distance between the Sun and the Earth.
Well, humans are doing things to add extra energy into the global heat balance, besides what they are doing with CO2, interfering with the normal rate at which heat can escape to space at night. Some of what we produce is irrelevant, because it is directly related to the normal energy cycle (solar, wind, and hydro power). But much of it is a relevant factor. Burning fossil fuel releases energy that was stored away millions of years ago; it is now an addition to the global thermal balance. Nuclear power, whether fission or fusion, also directly contributes to the global thermal balance. One of the more popular ideas for energy production is about collecting solar power in space, and beaming it to Earth --every erg of that would also be a direct addition to the global thermal balance.
The point is, even if we solved the CO2 problem, so long as population increases and we find ways to generate more energy, we will be working to upset the global thermal balance. Right now our total effort is trivial, compared to what the Sun supplies to Earth. In the long run, though, it cannot be blithely ignored.