Any attempts to create a consensus or scientific basis would, based on our current society's views towards science, only further to harden people's stance that science is wrong. Especially if it agreed with the principle that fewer people would be better for the environment.

Which makes sense, logically. Fulfilling a human's basic needs involves world-wide supply chains filled with oil-guzzling vehicles. Fulfilling their entertainment needs requires even more of the same.

They briefly explained their desire in the very next sentence.

> A lot of our problems would be less pronounced of we simply reduced their scale.

The statement "we need fewer people" might still not hold of course, but is their supporting argument controversial enough to need further elaboration?