Exactly. The article claims that the world is "better" because we have improved child mortality rates. They state (correctly) that the improvement is a conseque

Exactly. The article claims that the world is "better" because we have improved child mortality rates. They state (correctly) that the improvement is a consequence of alleviating poverty and improving material living conditions. But how did we DO that? Did we just put our heads down and chant "economic growth for everyone"?! No. This growth was, and will continue to be, driven by industrial capital, mining, and fossil fuels. How are children born today going to raise grandchildren in the likely decline of those advantages? And there must be a discussion of the costs: pollution, climate change, resource depletion, species extinction, and myriad other social and environmental externalities. Are things really "better" if more kids are born... into an unsustainable system? I think the younger generation today is ALREADY seeing the cracks, getting less from the system while paying higher costs to buy in. The energy-blind adherence to growth at all costs is a philosophy that does a disservice not just other species on earth, but future humans as well.