This. I wish more people realised there were about 200 million humans on the planet during the Roman Empire's existence. Nobody was worrying about eugenics or world crises.

What I'm worrying about is raising children in a continually prohibitive and hostile world where we sacrifice the quality of life in the name of the environment and financial frugality. What's the point? Where is the incentive to reproduce?

Humans will not disappear naturally. Anyone who's seen a Lotka-Volterra model will not be surprised we haven't reached equilibrium. There is no equilibrium. There is no infinite growth.

This is definitely one view—and it's totally valid. We put together this document for those who are concerned about the implications of some mass extinction (e.g. that populations that survive the mass extinction are far less likely to be gender egalitarian, so it may be that groups who want to protect women's rights over the long run will care more while groups optimizing for other things will care less).

If you consider massive amounts of suffering and death caused by resource shortages to be “good” then we have very different values systems

Everyone alive today has suffered. Everyone alive today will be dead in 150 years. Nothing anyone can do will change that.

Yet, Life will go on. With or without humans.

Don’t take it personally. It’s just Nature.

This is not about deaths (mass extinctions usually not follow from resource exhaustion, but from some crisis), this is about less people being born. Which is how human population self-regulates given the estimation of resource availability.

Source?