That doesn't make it true.

National parks, massive non profit animal parks, and well funded conservation teams all need funding and time. Both of those are a luxury in most places in the world with underdeveloped economies.

Across the world in countries living in poverty the environment always takes a backseat. Without a stable economy and stable nation states the outcomes will be far worse.

It’s hardly just either/or.

If anything it’s the mere existence of humans and population levels aren’t going down anytime soon. The fact they engage in trade for survival and to prevent suffering is merely a product of that.

The only way this articles direct correlation makes sense is if economic success doesn’t increase capacity for conservation and humans ability/technology isn’t capable of being at a minimum neutral harm to the wider ecosystem.

But it will always be a balance, that’s just the cards we were dealt being born on this planet. I mean we were already killing thousands of animals and countless plants and manipulating the earth well before the word ‘economy’ was ever invented.

The problem is conflating societal development with economic growth. Do the rhetorical people in the GP comment living in subsistence farming need money, or just food? We grow more food than we need, and if we as a species chose to allocate those resources as they were needed, we could feed everyone. Instead, consumers which are unprofitable to provide food to are left to fend for themselves. Crops regularly go to waste due to lack of demand from customers who can pay.