Ideally we'd find a population level where we can sustainable co-exist with our habitat (and then perhaps go out and find new habitats).

However such a balance might be hard, it is difficult to see that interest in having children in advanced economies would recover as populations crash. In fact likely as there are less people around (and a greater proportion being old), child rearing becomes more expensive to the individual.

Note that economic growth is not necessarily predicated on population growth, it can also measure better use of the people we do have (hopefully in an actualization, more than an extractive, sense). People should be understood as a (in fact the most) valuable resource, not as a costly burden.

our economic system is a scam to fleece populations by shifting value attribution from moving atoms to moving money. 'brightest' minds have a vested interest to keep the system going, after all it pays their bills.