I am in agreement with the end of your post with one large caveat.
...Adopting human-centered initiatives targeted at addressing both population growth and consumption habits, ranging from the individual to trans-national level, are our best hope for achieving a sustainable future."
They are not our best hope at all. They are the minimum level of effort and totally insufficient by themselves to actually solve the problem. A sustainable future absolutely does not result in a rising standard of living (as all the things promoted in that paragraph describe) as what is required is that all of the wealthy dramatically reduce this standard of living along with those of middle level wealth. We all need to become poor essentially. We can't grow our way out of this problem..we have to deflate our way out of it. Raising educational levels and empowering women is just what we should do because it is the right thing, but to think it will reduce fertility enough to make a meaningful difference is just to be ignoring the demographics. We are past the point where gradual changes will make a meaningful difference in the end result..we have to take dramatic actions to do that.
It seems to me that because we have not invested enough in improving individuals (not just their wealth but themselves), no one is willing to follow your call for dramatic actions, rather they all are more interested in looking after their own individual self-interests. Which why we both agree that some form of socio-economic collapse is all but inevitable.
The linked reference recommends deemphasizing both 'anti-growth' and 'green growth' policy discussions and instead recommends that such discussion focus on a third policy call 'agrowth' that "… is precautionary as it makes society less sensitive to potential scenarios in which climate policy constrains economic growth. Hence, it will reduce resistance to such policy""
Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh (2017), "A third option for climate policy within potential limits to growth", Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3113 http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n2/full/nclimate3113.html
Abstract: "Climate change has revived debates around the concept of limits to growth, 45 years after it was first proposed. Many citizens, scientists and politicians fear that stringent climate policy will harm economic growth. Some are anti-growth, whereas others believe green growth is compatible with a transition to a low-carbon economy. As the window to curb warming at 2 °C closes, this debate will intensify. This Review critically reflects on both positions, providing an overview of existing literature on the growth versus climate debate. Both positions are argued here to jeopardize environmental or social goals. A third position, labelled an 'agrowth' strategy, is proposed to depolarize the debate and reduce resistance to climate policies."
See also the associated linked article entitled: "The new theory of economic 'agrowth' contributes to the viability of climate policies"https://phys.org/news/2017-03-theory-economic-agrowth-contributes-viability.html
Extract: "The economy has a tremendous flexibility to adapt, through new technologies and changes in the composition of consumption and production. However, adaptation will not be complete and rapid without severe environmental regulation. It is not clear beforehand, though, that the ensuing economic transition will concur with economic growth. In fact, the new study finds that the empirical evidence and theoretical support for green growth under serious climate policies is feeble. In other words, being categorically pro-growth is a risk-seeking strategy with regard to climate change.
Literature describes that economic growth in rich countries anyway no longer contributes meaningfully to progress. Most people amply satisfy their basic needs, while poor people stand to benefit more from distributional measures, such as progressive income taxes, social security, public health care and a decent minimum wage.
"If the GDP indicator does not capture societal progress in rich nations, the time has come to ignore it", says van den Bergh. Therefore, "degrowth" and "zero growth" proposals are not considered feasible either, since they actually seek to reverse growth and cause a decline in GDP. He also indicates that anti-growth proposals lack a basis in rigorous science and thus can easily do more harm than good for society.
"One can be concerned or critical about economic growth without resorting to an anti-growth position", states the author. He goes on to highlight that an "agrowth" strategy will allow us to scan a wider space for policies that improve welfare and environmental conditions. Policy selection will not be constrained by the goal of economic growth. "One does not need to assume that unemployment, inequity and environmental challenges are solved by unconditional pro- or zero/negative growth. Social and environmental policies sometimes restrain and at other times stimulate growth, depending on contextual factors. An "agrowth" strategy is precautionary as it makes society less sensitive to potential scenarios in which climate policy constrains economic growth. Hence, it will reduce resistance to such policy", he indicates.
In a practical sense, van den Bergh states that it is necessary to combat the social belief - widespread among policy circles and politics - that growth has to be prioritized, and stresses the need for a debate in politics and wider society about stepping outside the futile framing of pro- versus anti-growth. "Realizing there is a third way can help to overcome current polarization and weaken political resistance against a serious climate policy".