I think the answer is the opposite. Consumption of resources is proportional to standard of living: it takes resources to make the most modern lifestyle available. The demographic collapse, however, is evident in highly industrialized societies like Korea, while backwards regions with a low standard of living still have high birthrates. Subsaharan Africa, for example, consumes less than Korea per capita but has a higher birthrate. It seems more likely that higher rates of resource consumption are correlated with lower birthrates.

>Consumption of resources is proportional to standard of living

It's not and you know this. It's at best correlated. The resources have to be used effectively, and right now they're definitely not. My quality of life does not go up because using up more resources instead of living sustainably.

Higher living standards are directly correlated with higher energy and resource consumption.

Unless you're living in a far distant village or in the middle of the woods producing everything you use, you're using an immense amount of resources in your everyday life.

Recycling, not buying the latest tech and curbing your diet don't make any significant dent into the amount of resources you're indirectly consuming by simply living and being active in a well-off, first-word or even "second-world" society.

Nah. I moved from Canada to Japan last year, and my quality of life has increased at the same time that my consumption has decreased. Correlation is not causation.

Consumption of resources in general is the problem, and that only happens at a scale where population growth remains stable or increases. It's not the difference between even 90% of newborns eventually doing something like modding their car to roll coal instead of using bike transportation.