For the entirety of biological existence reproduction has been the natural law governing the success of a species. In modern times this natural law holds. However, our current socioeconomic structuring and how it rewards reproductive success as opposed to success gauged by other measures show that they are in fact still linked, but in contrast to the previous positive link reproduction now holds an inverse relationship to success.
Between societies those societies with a greater rate of reproduction are almost always the poorer for it. Within societies this largely holds true except for those holding exorbitant wealth and power. One could posit the paucity of resources to dedicate to each member of said group and thus a relative decline into poverty with the addition of each constituent unit.
Now this postulation comes with the obvious caveat that economic growth has tended to accompany population growth. It is perhaps inappropriate to summarily dismiss the link between population growth and economic growth but this trend is important only insofar as two units of equal measure can perform more work than a commensurate singular unite.
Notwithstanding such caveats the fundamental argument here is that our society is decoupling from the evolutionary imperative and implementing a societal imperative. An imperative that grants success, resources, and prestige to those individuals or groups best poised to seize them. In contemporary human society this is a mix of meritocratic aptitude and despotic nepotism with success being so disproportionately skewed to a few that the guise of meritocracy only works under the argument that in order to avoid destitute poverty you must study and contribute to corporations which will return an insignificant fraction of your total productive worth.
In spite of this obvious disconnect between performance and success a trend is largely visible in which society prioritizes those who can best synthesize information.
This ability to synthesize information and furthermore provide formulaic solutions to pressing problems is the new definition of success, with the aforementioned caveat of the despotic nepotism rife throughout our tribal economic system, and will soon be of commensurate importance with energy efficiency. The human body metabolizes such a meager fraction of the caloric intake it requires that even given the incredible efficiencies of the human brain as compared to contemporary supercomputers, which already surpass the raw computational capacity of the human brain, it will be much more efficient for society to dedicate resources to even contemporary supercomputers as soon as the appropriate algorithms that can contribute to the solution of problems are developed. In effect utilizing thousands of hectares to feed a few meaty substrates will be so asinine that what will be witnessed will the be equivalent of the funneling of resources to today's capable magnified x100000. Thus, future society would find it more efficient to run a nuclear fusion reactor feeding even today's contemporary supercomputers because it will require a minuscule amount of fuel as compared to keeping the metabolic processes of humans running.
In essence a plausible view of the future will be the current directives of society amplified manifold where instead of the poor continent of Africa we will have the poor race of humanity. Instead of providing welfare and assistance as we do to those impoverished in our society our progeny will offer either transcendence or decadence in the form of simulations in which we will "succeed" as dictated by reproductive standards for they will be able to simulate an innumerable number of us ad infinitum. And thus my question to you is simply this; do we want to be successful in the sense that we have made cattle and chickens some of the most successful species on the planet or has the natural law of reproduction run its course?