I just want to add here that I actually wanted to make this an argument about social consent, but I forgot to do so. I have a further argument, which is that beyond the harm caused by new Western lives, we, the people living in Western societies, also do not consent to the addition and burden of new human lives in our societies, which we have to pay for and deal with. We do not consent to this burden and have basically no control over it, and yet it is imposed on us based on other people's decisions.

As for the first argument as stated, yes, this exploitation is a bad thing, however, isn’t up to us to help stop it? A family can also choose products that are not made in the third world in order to protest this injustice.

Regarding the secondary addition, despite the rise in population our standard of living has also risen and so it seems that more people doesn’t automatically spell doom. To give an example, we are in an age of prosperity, however, our unfortunate financial crisis was created by the rich, not people having families, and this seems to be the general theme throughout history. Governments are the problem, not families, so let’s get rid of government instead.

I also see no reason why contracts cannot be written up limiting the number of children a family can have in a given society. Those that want to live under that rule can do so. Those can choose not to can live in other communities.

Of course, there is a tipping point, but science is quickly progressing creating new technologies for food production (genetically modified food as one example) and searching for other earth-like worlds that can sustain human life in the event that this world becomes overcrowded.

The argument that one can choose products and escape exploiting others is not really valid if you consider the fact that any given person's production is dependent on everyone else's production. More specifically in this case, raw materials still have to come from somewhere, the metals used to make the machines have to come from somewhere, the workers' food and clothes have to come from somewhere, and so on and so forth. The fact is that we really have no idea how much exploitation is inherent in any given consumer product, and checking the "made in" tag is only an indication of where the finished product comes from, not all the other steps of the way.

I don't think my second argument was clear, because I don't really see the relation between your objection and what I said. You are not addressing the fact that new human lives in our society imposes a burden on you and me personally. This has nothing to do with government or financial crises, and would be true even if government or financial crises did not exist (although of course life as a whole would be much easier, of course, more human lives would still impose a burden on everyone).