When one species growing prevents others from doing the same there is a problem in that ecosystem. For example too many wolves in an area can cause a reduction in prey which is also bad for the wolves. We're just smart enough to see what we're doing is harmful to the world around us and we can do things to limit our damage.

Humans have not only sat on that couch; we've slept on it, puked on it, taken a dump on it, taken it outside and set fire to it.

I find a lot of people can kind of fall down from this path, into anti-natalism, and then malthusianism, and then ultimately eco-fascism and eugenics, through what I like to call the "idiocracy deduction". Name pending. The sort of idea that, if stupid people are the only one having kids, only stupid people will promulgate, and then we'll all be stupid. Substitute stupid, for whatever political ideological group you don't really like (or even minority group), bam, shit's wacked. So, logically, stupid people, or, my political opposition, or, people I don't like/who can't be trusted to have kids, shouldn't be allowed to have them. After all, you know, it's more ecologically conscientious to not have kids, so we should just kind of force everyone to not have kids. A lot of this is also going to come down to like, third world countries tending to have higher birth rates because of higher infant mortality, and also tending to have higher emissions, and those two are connected because ???. It's sort of the inverse of christian conservatives who want to force every white anglo saxon protestant into having 70 billion kids, and then do things like ban abortion on those grounds.

I think there's also this like, really stupid idea that if we have more people, somehow those people will not have any jobs, based on some naturalistic concern. This is stupid. It's less that we've surpassed the planet's carrying capacity, and more that we all are just fucking morons who live in an 18th century economic hellsystem. That's the core of why mathusianism doesn't work, because there is no "hard" carrying capacity to the planet. People in ancient times had to occupy much larger portions of land in order to support themselves, because their crops were not selectively bred to maximize their calories, and because of diseases and shit, which is part of why agriculture sucked back in the day compared to hunter-gathering, (even though in practice the two aren't really that different, hunter-gatherers just move around more and thus have access to that larger space which they need to "grow their crops"). In any case, you'd have to build some argument that we've entered a period of natural technological stagnation, which is pretty fucking hard to do because you have to thoroughly discount any conceivable future technologies that might help, and you have to discredit the amount of blame resting on the current economic system.

So, yeah, I dunno. I find the whole dealio kind of dumb and stupid. Seems like an overcorrection, kind of like those hardcore atheists that were everywhere in the 2000's and 2010's, and you could tell they'd all grown up being raised by radical fundamentalist christian parents or whatever, or just that christians are fucking annoying (big if true), and then have kind of a limited perspective, even just on all religions, because of that, on top of not really being politically different enough from those christians, if you actually boiled it all down. Everyone's a neoliberal, at the end of the day, everyone's buying in to the same premises and arguments, even when they disagree on some issue, and then they all fail to see the bigger picture and just kind of end up splintering themselves into more and more radical extremist positions.

Actually you can stop reading here (if you even read all of that, good luck), but I kind of wonder if that's just like, an inevitable facet of late stage capitalism. It sort of seems to me like the ideological version of spam, which I tend to think of a lot as an analogy for capitalism "maximizing efficiency". Spam is nonsense, nobody wants to read it, and yet, it will inevitably eat up all the bandwidth if left unchecked, because those with the most economic resources want to cut out all other avenues of communication, and, "make efficient use of the bandwidth". The fact that everyone eventually becomes kind of radicalized and pushed into these nonsensical extremist positions, totally lacking nuance, the fact that, you know, people slip into fascism, it seems kind of along the same lines. People get pushed to what the maximum extent of their political ideology will allow, through some mechanism, despite liberalism kind of inherently being a modest and compromising ideology at heart, one that becomes incoherent if you actually push it to any logical extremes. I dunno if there's anything there, about how people's conceptions of things gets shaped by like, the larger economic system at work.

Then how will said kids survive without the environment, or are you okay with them suffering and dying later.

if the environment is fucked so are you and your kids