So, let me start out by saying that you're a much smarter and a much stronger writer than me. So while what I'm about to say might seem a bit faulty here and there, take what I'm saying with similar merit as someone more eloquent.

"us" gets larger and larger every year, and the only way to prevent that fact is to restrict people being able to freely have kids.

Actually, it just so happens that we're starting to find out that with economic and social stability, populations start to stabalize.

No. They have no more a right to exist than the undisturbed rocks that existed before trees moved up and took them over did. They have no more right to exist than humanity.

Rights do not exist in nature, they don't exist to anything but social, empathetic, species who benefit from giving each other rights. Rocks, plants, animals, and so on, have no "rights", no more than what we so decide to give them.

Yeah. Same is true for people. We have rights, because we as a collective whole decided that it's of value for us to have rights. The same is true for the natural world as a whole. We have decided, as a collective whole, that the natural world holds value and has the right to be protected. I'll get on that in a bit.

To live means to destroy other life to do so. In your life, you have likely killed thousands of animals, bugs, used resources derived from the corpses of hundreds of living things, and you a support a society that does more of that ever day.

You want to back up your idea that these things have a right to live, a right equal to your own, and that one should seek to do no harm? There is only one solution, and I am sure you won't be a fan of it.

I eat meat. My wife eats meat. My dog eats meat. There is nothing about our behavior that is incompatible with my worldview. You are thinking in terms of "either or." I'm thinking in terms of "sustainability." Eating meat, consuming natural resources such as wood and water, is not good or bad in and of itself. You're absolutely right. What is bad though, both objectively and morally, is unsustainable behavior. Overfishing and rampant deforrestation to support the beef industry are both perfect examples of how being irresponsible leads to harm. It's completely possible to be a consumer, while still act in a responsible, sustainable way and we're heading in that direction with such behaviors as encouraging renewable resources and energy like wind and solar power.

A world powered by farm-towers and tuna-farms, where CO2 is maintained by a network of machines, regulated by mankind, is far better, for more happy, more meaningful, than one of nature that serves the same purpose. The world, when all it's resources are devoted to the feeding and care of humanity, will be one that is good, not negative. The wiping out of nature will cease to be bad the moment we no longer rely on it.

No. We have a hard enough time as it is trying to upscale batteries and manufacturing techniques. We're constantly coming through with ideas that seem like breakthroughs, but only lead to dead ends because they can't be upscaled. To think that we can come up with enough mechanisms to replace the natural order and apply it on a global scale is not only naive, wishful thinking, but utterly irresponsible. Nature is working on a mechanism that has developed over millions of years and we still don't understand how a lot of things work. We're not going to replace it.

Better a world of nothing but trash and huts, with humans inside them than a world of trees where not a single person lives.

In those trees is this:

Damn. Nature's scary. You're right. There's disease, parasites, predators, prey, fear, death, and on and on. But it's natural, it's healthy, it's balanced, and it's fair in its unfairness. I see your point and I we both agree on it. My point though, you seem to miss. Ghettos? Slums? Economic inequality? Once again, WE KNOW BETTER. We know what's happening is wrong. We know how to prevent it. AND WE STILL LET IT HAPPEN. Humans treat eachother like utter and complete shit half the time, when we can so easily rise above it if we only tried. You really want to usurp an automated natural balance and instead leave controls in our hands when we're so demonstrably irresponsible? Really?

It won't appreciate your help, either.

Doing the right thing isn't about appreciation or reward. It's about doing what is right. Period.

We shouldn't demonize human society because it comes at the cost of nature either.

I'm not demonizing human nature. I'm saying that we can do better. I'm saying that we should encourage ourselves to do better, and without the sacrafice of biodiversity, a resource that is beyond value.