Collectively, as humans we have a choice, a contrast of two paths starkly illustrated in Jared Diamond’s Collapse. We could go the way of the Easter Islanders and destroy the natural world in the name of “progress” only to see ourselves destroyed as well, or we could go the way of the Tikopia islanders, who willingly ceased slash-and-burn agriculture and raising pigs when they saw the trajectory of self-destruction that would lead to. They judiciously assessed that their island was resource-constrained, and that overpopulation would spell their downfall by degrading their environment until they went extinct, so they voluntarily restricted their population to 1200 people.
I believe that with a paradigm shift in the mindset of humans to a) limit population growth willingly, and b) ensure the natural world is upheld as sacrosanct (as modern day Bhutanese view it) and essential to all life on earth, and c) pivot ourselves away from idealizing consumerism and instead emphasizing simplicity and equanimity (again, epitomized in the Bhutanese) we can turn things around. Perhaps it is an optimistic and idealistic view, given all the complexities and challenges the world faces - like food shortages - which unfortunately pit the natural world against humans and ultimately lead to choosing short-term gains over long-term survival. Addressing overpopulation is an under-appreciated piece of the puzzle for this very reason and one that - regretfully - had we addressed like the Tikopia people centuries ago we’d not be in the place we are now.