Except he’s not advocating not producing. He’s advocating not OVER producing. That’s clearly not the same thing.

My grandfather used to be a hobby farmer and was raised on a small family owned farm prior to WWII. Anyway, he loved Herfords and always kept a small herd; this was where our red meat came from.

This small herd was always cows, but he only bred about half the stock every year. Reason, he only had room for that many and even though they were to be sold it was also just better for the health of the cows.

As he got older, he decreased the breeding rate. Reason, he was retiring and couldn’t afford to feed them without risking his retirement fund as he retired early in a form of protest.

Still later, he reduced the breeding rate yet again. Reason, he couldn’t care for them as well anymore due to my grandmother’s failing health into a chronic condition and he had had a stroke himself (he recovered from that one almost 100%).

The point of all of this is that to keep the best, most optimal conditions for life, you have to consider living space, food, and care availability. Otherwise life is miserable, not something to be protected and promoted at all cost.

That’s as true for humans as it is for cows or any other living thing.

You say you’re an ecologist. I studied ecology in university too as part of a degree in Wildlife Science. So, I know if you’re an ecologist you’re familiar with the landmark studies of the snowshoe hare / Lynx cycle and how one population crash follows the other in a never ending cycle of boom and bust.

I know you must have seen photos or IRL browse lines in forests from deer overpopulation. I know you’ve seen the news articles or trade publications about the increasing number of cervids dying of tick plague, fawns and yearlings literally being killed by blood loss to thousands of ticks covering their bodies.

Overpopulation is no joke and starvation is a brutal death. We have the ability to ensure that is not our fate by being more sensible about our reproduction.