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.

If less children and mothers dying and less people in famine doesn't give you hope I don't think anything will. Good luck.

If the only thing you're bringing to the table is the notion that, in the midst of several interrelated threats to global civilization, more people globally experience what a pakistani brickmaker might consider prosperity, you should consider spending a bit more effort towards staying informed of current events.

The thing you scoff at in your racist quip lots of mothers would kill to give their children, still today. Real peoples lives are improving at a great pace, the fact you have so much more doesn't make less deaths at birth any less positive. When I was younger to hear someone speak like this of reducing world hunger would get you labeled with whatever the most evil label would be.

It's telling that you claim racism in a comment that underlines the ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE that is manual labor in Pakistan. I think we've established you aren't actually paying attention.