Profit AND a growing population.
The Amazon forest is not burning today because there is too much people in Brazil. It's burning because it makes a lot of money. Bolsonaro thinks that not exploiting this space hinders Brazil's economy. Cattle ranching, soy bean production, massive infrastructure projects such as hydroelectric dams, waterways and roads to deliver products... Those are the ambitions and motives explaining the fires of today. Not population growth.
Like I said, in the same vein as this example, I believe that environmental destruction is the result of economic interests and expensive wasteful lifestyles.
I also noticed that the narrative implying that population growth is a driving factor of the situation, and that some control must be achieved, is often the product of an argumentation that does not confront the main consequential issue (not saying that's your case). I feel like it's either a refusal to even consider giving up on the Western way of life, or believing it to be inevitable. The problem with this rhetoric, is that it ignores the fact that even if we somehow stopped population from growing altogether today, the fires burning our planet today
still won't be put out because the same capitalistic interests will
still justify them.
Again, I'm not saying that's what you're saying or implying, I'm just talking about the population growth argument in general.
Population growth is merely an accelerating factor. Unfortunately, it's often used as a scapegoat so as to not address the real problem. And that's not even addressing the racist element of the discourse, that you hinted at in your first response.