A persuasive (/nagging) wife can have a more powerful influence on decision making than any rational argument about global resources.

As you allude to in your post, genetically we’re basically ‘just’ animals. This means that we probably have a reindeer-like instinct to just keep on reproducing while resources allow. Stating that resources are critical won’t stop that. Only wars and famine and other nasties will. There’s nothing significant any of us can do so there’s probably no point worrying about.

If I remember my A-Level geography correctly Malthus talked of positive and negative checks to stop reindeer-like catastrophes occuring. Some of these that can be seen today could be famines in Africa, wars in the Middle East (positive checks) that kill people and things like people marrying later, economic turmoil, and the ‘acceptability’ (sorry, I know that’s probably the wrong word) of homosexual lifestyles (negative checks) that lead to fewer births. These negative checks are all more common in richer or what are considered (another horrible word) more civilised countries so it could be a case of: as all countries become richer and more liberal the birth rates will fall and the impact on resources will be less.
I appreciate that that’s very simplistic, will take a long time, and does not consider that we’ll all live longer, but at least it’s not neccessarily all doom and gloom.