The retort misses the point entirely. Of course, reproduction is a biological imperative—so is eating food, yet many of us don't binge-eat to satisfy our hunger. Given the dire consequences of humanity's current existence, Nikhil’s essay suggests that maybe the time has come to take the same responsible approach to having kids and raising them in a world wasted by its inhabitants.
The retort also ignores the fact that people in poverty-stricken communities are not immune to the dangers of overpopulation and climate change. Most cases of poverty are, in fact, caused by environmental degradation. People living in poverty need more than just baby-making to escape their hardships; they need systemic change and a re-imagining of our relationship with nature and the resources that it provides us with.
Finally, it is true that having children can sometimes be beneficial for the environment, but it's also true that large families can often be detrimental to the planet. A single extra child in a well-off family may reduce their environmental footprint by 20%, but it will still result in 30% more carbon dioxide emissions than having none at all.
In conclusion, Nikhil's essay was correct: parents should take responsibility for their choices and be aware of the consequences of having children. The retort failed to accept this truth, but hey, UrRong.