This is a silly straw man. Who says we can't reduce our resource usage without destroying modern society? Our massive amounts of waste are not necessary to our way of life.
> And we're not about to tell people in rural India and rural Africa, sorry, you're too late. You can't aspire to live like us or your rich city dwellers.
Except you are saying that, because you're suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to have as many children as they'd like.
Modern society can become more "efficient;" produce less waste per cap. But we can't bring everyone (and their future pop growth) into this lifestyle without enviro impact. We can achieve it if high growth pops reduce growth and we all aim for more efficient lifestyles.
>Except you are saying that, because you're suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to have as many children as they'd like.
Nope. I'm saying like China, they can if they curtail pop growth. Compare the trajectories of China and India.
Population of China: 1.4 billion
Population of Europe: 0.74 billion
Population of India: 1.3 billion
Europe isn't all that populous. And why compare an aggregation like "Europe" anyway? Tropical Africa is also more populous than Europe is. Southeast Asia is less populous, but not a lot less.
So since we would like to have everyone live a "comfortable" life, we'll need to slow the growth so that we have enough to pass around.
Xiao-ping Deng knew the path to growth included slowing pop growth. See China dev vs Indian dev and growth. Costa Rica vs Guatemala, etc.