Selfish reasons to want more humans

I don't think something like what happened due to COVID is related to that. That was a matter of poor logistics, not of scarcity of resources.

I believe the author is talking about things like "we need lots of mineral foobar to sustain us, and at our current population growth, we'll run out in five years!" ---> "oh neat, we can substitute mineral barbaz, plus a little cheap processing, and we have enough to last us thousands of years".

In this case, "resource" is defined more as "raw materials that we can feasibly and economically access". Being unable to meet demand for computer chips because your global supply chain suffered a shock isn't the same thing.

A concrete example of how we've overcome the possibility of a catastrophic resource shortage is advances in drilling and mining. Oil and natural gas reserves that were not feasible to pump out of the ground 50 years ago are now being harvested. The claims of "peak oil" turned out to be irrelevant; we have plenty, and as we "run low", we go after reserves that are harder to get to.

And this process continues: even if it weren't a good idea to stop burning oil and natgas for climate-change reasons, sure, eventually those wells will run dry, or harvesting will become so expensive that it no one would be able to afford to drive their cars or heat their homes anymore. So instead we develop and refine technologies (solar and wind farms, more and more efficient heat pumps, EVs, etc.) that change the game entirely. (Still waiting on Mr. Fusion, though.)

What strikes me about this recent wave of pro-natalism is how banal and devoid of serious argument it is.

Just to mention a few things, any ethical system of a mature civilization should have something to say about the entire biosphere, not just homo sapiens. The article doesn't lose a word on the fate of any other species on this planet, and I don't know how one can even have this discussion without recognizing that we're only one of the many inhabitants here. If you're going to propose an entire world view based on some superficial notion of self-interest you can justify anything.

For a worldview that leans so heavily into utilitarianism it's very odd to ignore most sentient life on earth. I invite the author to visit a large scale factory farm to see the "technological progress" in action that sustains 8 billion people and then to ponder how that squares with his own supposed standard for ethical progress.

Second point is this naive Steve Pinker-esque belief in "progress" to begin with. If you're going to argue that "more geniuses" and "more ethnic restaurants" constitute some deep and authentic moral progress for human civilization you have your work cut out for you, most people on the planet don't share that value system, and it's not obvious that anyone should buy into it without justification. It's almost naive to the point of being tautological, where "progress" is when more people do more things, and therefore having more progress is having more people.

More geniuses — there are plenty of talented "brains" that simply never get a chance due to malnutrition, disease, lack of education and opportunity. We'd have far more of them if we could provide a higher minimum standard of living throughout the entire world.

Look at all the people involved in machine manufacture, transport, mining, etc. for sure.

The point being made is that more and more tonnes of raw material are being shipped to smelters per person than ever before.

Automation is still advancing so this will only increase, automation is also advancing in processing and production - we no longer need vast numbers of people to produce a billion tonnes of steel, and the number currently required is still falling.

Black Death.

cheap labour -> throw more people at old sol'ns -> stagnation

dear labour -> find new, more productive sol'ns -> progress