The article fails to mention a key element in eliminating poverty -- free and affordable access to fertility control measures for women, as well as an absolute sovereign right for women to choose when and whether to have children.
Wait ... men don't have the sovereign right not to get pregnant? I'm not sure that's a persuasive argument for or against anything.
> ... but society is doing just fine.
Yes, all except the part about being way overpopulated.
Basically, birth control leads to a slow death of civilization. The most tragic thing about it is that you can't do anything about it, as denying women the choice would be violation of their human rights.
Therefore, advanced societies are doomed to die out and be replaced by more primitive ones. Which happened few times in history (e.g. Roman Empire) and is already happening again in some part of the world (e.g. EU immigration crisis)
So does overpopulation. Your argument applies to a society that requires and assumes constant growth, for which it's certainly true, but that model has its own innate limitations, like overpopulation outstripping available land and resources.
> The most tragic thing about it is that you can't do anything about it, as denying women the choice would be violation of their human rights.
There's a myth implicit in this argument, that women would have more children if they could. But surveys reveal that women want to be able to choose, and if they could choose, they would have fewer children.
The fall of Rome is probably the most overdetermined overinvestigated event in history; everyone has their pet theory. It's usually marked as the crossing of the Rhine by various 'barbarians' and the inability to mount an effective defence.
Don't feed the trolls
Also, the Romans died out because they fell into decadence, which is exactly what the west is doing right now.
No historian on earth believes this. That's a myth from Gibbon.