I think the supply shocks is the part of the pro-natalist view that is hardest for me to accept.

My counter-argument: the full expression of human achievement is not genetic; it depends on the resources given to the human; If we accept that someone cannot reach their entire potential if living in poverty, and we accept that a lot of the advantages of rich children are due to the environment and opportunities that wealth provides, then it naturally concludes that we could get all of the advantages that pro-natalists look for by creating a higher standard living for all existing children.

Only when we can provide the sustainable resources for all people on the planet can we accept the idea that we have room for more.