Gotta disagree here. Take recycling as an example. It is better and often easier not to produce waste in the first place than it is to develop systems to recycle it. So it goes for human beings too. Every new person adds a small burden to the planet. Rather than develop systems to provide for billions of new human beings, it may be easier to manage global population, so that those burdens are never created in the first place. Otherwise, we will impose an ever increasing load on the Earth.
Of course, history is on your side. Since Malthus first sounded the population alarm back in the 1800s, technological developments have pushed our day of reckoning further and further into the future. The "green revolution," in particular, involving fertilizer and agricultural innovation, has proven Malthus wrong.
Science and technology could get us out of this jam, as well. Too bad it is politically fashionable to dismiss science these days.
Right you are. The human species is not going extinct. At least, not right away.. That's why I say quality of life is the issue.
Right again. It's ironic that those in developing nations will pay a higher cost than we will. In many ways they are not causing the problems. My wish, of course, is that the people in developing nations could all enjoy a standard of living on a par with those who live in the rich countries. Were that to happen, however, the planet will be burdened even more.
Like Roseanne Roseannadanna (the SNL character played by Gilda Radner) used to say, "Well, Jane, it just goes to show you, it's always something — if it ain't one thing, it's another."