Well the "throwing wealth away" is a big difference. And it's not just a matter of wealth. It's what people do with that wealth, such as influence the world negatively. The top 1% of those hell-bent on doing strange things usually don't have children that are similarly obsessed. And finally, it would increase the TOTAL number of people, which would exacerbate the situation because an absolute total number of people means even more exploitation by the rich.
> it would increase the TOTAL number of people, which would exacerbate the situation because an absolute total number of people means even more exploitation by the rich
The hypothesis is exploitation scales with population?
> if you include exploitation of natural resources in the calculation
Well yes, if you change definitions I am a pink elephant.
There is no evidence “exploitation by the rich” of everyone else scales with population. (There is some evidence for the opposite.)
Even if we talk environmentalism, economies of scale mean larger populations tend to be more efficient ceteris paribus. And the whole premise is foundational wrong: longer adult lifespans predict lower childbirth and population declines. Not increases.
