No, of course not. Why does that matter? We only are going to care about species that care about us? I’ve been told that we are that special species with higher consciousness.
Not seeing much evidence of it.
To return to the OP:
As requested, putting aside the good thing or not.
I think the answer is simply that there does not seem be any practical way to increase birth rates in a population, especially the decrease that is typically seen as populations become wealthier and better educated and with women of greater agency.
The issue then becomes how to adapt.
My take is that climate change is going to result in increasing numbers of young adult climate refugees. I would suspect that individual nations that are more welcoming to these refugees will have their demographic base supported by these immigrants and do well; those that remain staunchly anti-immigrant will not.
Part of making that happen is adequate housing and healthcare to prevent resentment against these populations, and to provide for the children they bring and produce as well.
Not sure how to accomplish this but perhaps raise the status of parents, mothers especially? If we treated mothers (and fathers) like rock stars or top athletes, perhaps more might aspire to the role?
Then are wolves also a destructive force for evil?
We are, and that consciousness is what I value about humans. Hence why I don’t give a shit about things with no higher consciousness, except for insofar as they impact the well being of conscious creatures (so far, only humans).
No. Nothing is, except humans. We fell. And we’ve never gotten up.
Talk about speciesism!
Why? Both species care nothing about other species, why is one “A destructive force for evil” and the other not?
“Humans are the most important creatures on the planet” is different from “Humans are the only important creatures on the planet”, and “Humans are the most sentient creatures on the planet” is different from “Humans are the only sentient creatures on the planet”.
In both cases, I’ll take the former over the latter.
uh, because we’re destroying the planet. No other animal is destroying the planet. No other animal CAN destroy the planet. We can, and we are. Ergo.
Humans are only the most important because we’re the ones destroying the planet. That is what makes us the most important. If we were not, we would be of equal importance to all the other sentient beings.
- In general, the reason for the fall in the birth rate is that people are smart enough to recognize the value of having more people running around - not much. So it’s completely plausible that as we start to experience a world that feels too empty, with lots to offer to anyone who wants it, that people start having more kids.
- As the population shrinks, the proportion of children of parents that like to make lots of babies will grow. Now, not to say that the desire to make lots of babies is either a completely genetic nor trained/cultural trait but I’d venture to guess that any traits which do pass on from generation to generation that encourages baby making will grow. Whether that means more religiosity or a higher sex drive, I don’t know, but we’d expect things of that nature to start to dominate society more strongly, relative to current levels.
- As we approach the singularity, humans won’t really have much to do past hedonism. Hard work is, as Star Trek shows, just one form of hedonism for a minority. In general, we should expect an uptick in artistic endeavors, gastronomy, and orgiastic pursuits when, really, there’s nothing productive that needs to be done. And, with that being so, there’s liable to be more babies.
- Adding more children as we continue to extend our lifespan and mental capabilities, may not be necessary in order to maintain an ongoing population and still continue social and technical development.
- In general, we should probably expect (due the above) that as the population shrinks, various forces will act to increase it again until, again, the total numbers become too onerous for people to want to do it again. And so, again, we’ll expect another drop. Over time, we should expect that some equilibrium is found. (Though it might be centuries from now.)
- Or we destroy ourselves and the question is moot.
You are incorrect. Many species (some not even animals) “destroyed” the planet, over and over.
The worst example of this was when the nastiest, most polluting of all creatures - photosynthesizers (spit) - first arose, and started spitting out their nasty oxygen all over the place (oxygen atoms are super reactive and destructive to many forms of life, much like acid).
The Great Oxidation Event nearly wiped out all life on Earth - it came much closer to doing so then humans ever have.
I’m not sure what definition of “sentient” you are using here.
What beings are “sentient”, aside from us?
If you just mean aware, don’t you think sapience is more important than sentience?
Was the original cyanobacteria a force for evil? It completely destroyed the ecosystem that it evolved in, by filling the atmosphere with toxic levels of oxygen.
By continuously producing and releasing oxygen over billions of years, cyanobacteria are thought to have converted the early Earth’s anoxic, weakly reducing prebiotic atmosphere, into an oxidizing one with free gaseous oxygen (which previously would have been immediately removed by various surface reductants), resulting in the Great Oxidation Event and the “rusting of the Earth” during the early Proterozoic,[12] dramatically changing the composition of life forms on Earth.[13] The subsequent adaptation of early single-celled organisms to survive in oxygenous environments likely had led to endosymbiosis between anaerobes and aerobes, and hence the evolution of eukaryotes during the Paleoproterozoic.
We frankly have no idea what is aware and what isn’t. For oh, maybe 300,00 years, we gave everything the benefit of the doubt and assumed the universe was alive in all its parts. Then we reversed ourselves and decided we were the only species that mattered and everything existed to serve us, and could be carelessly tortured or exterminated at whim. Sapience is not more important. If we indeed have it more than other species.
Most mammals and birds, I’d guess. 
Only if cyanobacteria were conscious that they were destroying the ecosystem and did it anyway, the way we are. Evil requires consciousness of the import of one’s actions.
Ah, gee, this is the fourth time today I’ve been ninja’d.
We are only slightly more conscious of that than the cyanobacteria, I’d wager. 