I think if I were living in the third world those would give me hope that if I had a child they would have a better life than I had, not very compelling for a p

I think if I were living in the third world those would give me hope that if I had a child they would have a better life than I had, not very compelling for a privileged white American. I think for the world at large, more people, means more consumption, means more pollution and fewer resources per person. Those improvements are likely largely found in pre-industrial societies, and industrialization is environmentally expensive too. I am willing to believe that while the velocity of global warming is positive, the acceleration of it might be negative. That would be hope inducing, but that's generally not the sense I've gotten. When someone says the world is on fire, I think they are literally referring to the world being on fire, global warming, or the general rise of authoritarianism/strongmen across the world and the conflict they require to stay in power.