What is the limit of the argument that we should make do with less so that more can live? Involuntary interventions are morally questionable, and often don't w

What is the limit of the argument that we should make do with less so that more can live? Involuntary interventions are morally questionable, and often don't work in the long run. However, Europe, Japan, and the US (absent migration) have been voluntarily reducing their populations for years now, though the consequences of that shift present economic challenges. No, I do not think that the projected human population can all drive cars, have big homes, have computers and cell phones, regularly fly around the world, and eat lots of meat without irreversible ecological collapse. However, for the most part all those things are good things absent their externalities, and the externalities really are only bad because of the scale.