I think besides all the excellent points you raise, part of the negative reaction we are seeing comes from traditional economists' assumptions about expansion. It’s practically an axiom that economies must either expand or die, that prosperity is not possible without constant expansion.

But of course this axiom has to eventually confront a malthusian dilemma. Continued economic expansion is largely a function of steady population expansion.

Steady population expansion is not sustainable in the long run, of course, which for economists presents something of an existential crisis. Hence, I think, the instinct to push off the idea of the necessity of population stabilization into the very far future.

But to understand how much of a problem that is, all we have to do is look around us. The very far future is here right now. We’re in the middle of a catastrophic global species extinction event, the climate is heating faster than even pessimistic scientists predicted in the 1980s and '90s, and key ocean ecosystems are dying.

It should be self-evident that now is the time to embrace the idea that global population decline is necessary — despite how many economic assumptions that overturns.