Alright. So the tldr of this article is that the more we are, the more we can commit to research in eg shrinking agriculture area per capita, which will be less

Alright. So the tldr of this article is that the more we are, the more we can commit to research in eg shrinking agriculture area per capita, which will be less hard on Earth. That we need a large population because it's cross discipline research and besides... More Researchers, right? The author simply assumes we still have much to do there so the argument heavily hinges on that assumption. The author makes no effort to counter this with the innate ease on Earth by simply being less people around? Surely, this factor may or may not be even more powerful than optimizing agriculture further than where we already are in a very advanced society. Or did I miss something? If I didn't, this article is biased. Besides, isn't there a risk that research made us more harmful for Earth? He points to reduced agricultural footprints but the cost for this has been monocultures that damage Earth and require use of antibiotics which damage Earth (humans included). So I don't think more research innately lends to a healthier planet either.