I think your last paragraph sums up the article very well. One question remainins: did the author succeed in convincing himself?
It's a fluff piece based on naming a few patterns that could be used as arguments for more humans, not an exploration of the problem space. For example he does not even mention that one pattern that has accompanied humanity through all of history: population control through war. When it's too crowded for young humans to live like their parents and grandparents did, they are easy to rile up against some other group and then the population level resets.
I'd suggest the answer to the question you posed is likely 'yes'. The points the author raises under More options tells me much about the person he is and I've encountered his type before and they think like that.
As I said I don't see much point in discussing population as much as I'd like to. With the world as it is, it's easy to be disparaging against those who argue for a larger population and that we'll always find or develop more resources but it serves no purpose when those who are in favor hold those views as beliefs rather than having arrived at them objectively.
We shouldn't forget there's long social and religious traditions concerning fecundity and 'go forth and multiply', and these beliefs are deeply ingrained in much of the population. Also, one has to be heartless not to feel very sorry for a grieving couple who've been told by an IVF clinic they can't have any children even if that would benefit the planet. Much of the world's population see the biological urge to multiply as normal and fundamental so it's understandable why those who question the doctrine such as Paul Ehrlich and Jane Goodall have been verbally pilloried over the years. Their message is repugnant even if correct.
That said, we need the discussion and we need to listen to Ehrlich et al but it's not going to happen for reasons stated. What I find most disconcerting and hypocritical are environmentalists and groups like Greenpeace arguing about pollution, limited resources and environmental issues whilst they blatantly ignore the population 'elephant'. When asked why they've been known to say "it's too hot handle, we wouldn't touch it with a barge pole."
I'd like to discuss your point about population control through war as history of warfare is an interest of mine but it's too big to post here.
It's a fluff piece based on naming a few patterns that could be used as arguments for more humans, not an exploration of the problem space. For example he does not even mention that one pattern that has accompanied humanity through all of history: population control through war. When it's too crowded for young humans to live like their parents and grandparents did, they are easy to rile up against some other group and then the population level resets.