> I agree that society and technology could evolve us through a much more desirable path. But the more time we can buy for that to happen, the better.

I would inflect this differently. An open and free society is much more likely to figure out a desirable path for the future than one steered by central authority.

(In fact, it is the accumulation of thousands or millions of small improvements that will, in retrospect, be seen as a desirable path.)

Desiring "extra" conservation of the resources that today seem most limited, might not necessarily be incompatible with an open and unplanned society. But it usually is.

I agree with all your points, but, regarding the last sentence, I'd like to point out that this is definitely one of the (perhaps rare) cases in which a desire for radical conservation is compatible with openness and freedom.

I'm talking about letting people choose not to reproduce (textbook freedom), instead of having a government policy to influence them to revert their choices for the perceived greater good (central planning).