What would you suggest a society of N = 620 people should do if there are 20 infertile women, and the resource state permits that only 600 of them can make it until the next resource drop? Should they let fate determine who the 20 deaths will go to? Or should they be smart? Or is being smart here too emotionally hard for you?

At some point, engineering society is the difference between having a society and not having one. There may have been many tribes and villages that perished in history because organisms did not understand how to engineer viable populations (e.g. the difference between sending an old woman to gather berries instead of a younger fertile woman). For example, you would not let someone become "trans" because they don't like being a woman, if your population size is too small. They'll have to suck it up and copulate. As will people who are gay and asexual. There is no room for these modern concepts when the population size is critical. But, this is too emotionally difficult to understand. We have been pampered with "rights" in large N society.

We won't understand this until we hit a resource critical stage and we are forced to make harder decisions about our population.

If you have been to civil court, you will start to wonder about which humans should stop reproducing first. Parents who beat their children, verbally abuse them, and use drugs will likely be the first to go. At some point, a decision will need to be made and our morals will be redefined to do what is necessary. Until then, you can be happy that you will not live to see such a time. You and I are so damn lucky.

Someone someday will be making those decisions, and whoever they are, they deserve our respect, not our dismissal, disapproval, and hostility.