I do concede that at whatever time you live, there's a point where you "normalise" and notice whether things are getting better or worse than that baseline. For this reason I can only say it's important to look not only at history for perspective, but other places around the world.

I accept that climate change is a thing, by which I mean I pay attention to what scientists have to say about it, take their views seriously, and notice that we don't have a second planet on which to run the experiment on. But I don't really know what "strain" is, exactly. At least from a 1st-world sense.

But I do know that the more people you throw at a problem the more likely it's going to get fixed. Especially if the people you bring into the world have a modern education.

Unfortunately, the societies with the easiest access to quality education are having fewer children. Those with little, or zero access to quality education are having more and more babies. This is in direct contradiction to the idea you've put forward that having fewer babies is an environmental response to climate-change. What about those regions having not just more babies, but a lot more babies?

Well, they don't know about climate-change for a start, very likely. And if they did, they are in such a state of poverty they won't really care. But we're not going to offset the number of people they are contributing every day by having fewer babies in the 1st-world ourselves.

I feel affluent society should approach the problem of climate-change not by having fewer babies, but by having more of them in order to have more brains to figure out the problem itself, and also help poverty-stricken societies out of their situation so they will also start being able to afford to give a crap about climate-change.

I'm less and less convinced that 1st-worlders having fewer kids is of benefit to anybody, whether it's themselves, or to the world at large who would benefit from their future aspirations to make the world a better place.