I'm sorry, but this just feels like you saying that logistics are not actually real. A certain number of people reproducing at a certain rate need a certain number of resources to maintain and grow their population. A country's population is primarily a measure of the infrastructure in place to sustain that population and the consequential need of the infrastructure to be maintained by a certain amount of people.

No they are real and it was erroneous to say population has nothing to do with it. However, the infrastructure itself is a product of the culture and its priorities. Talking world population, there are enough people and resources to logistically have everyone fed, clothed, and housed without raping the earth, even with as many people as we have. The problem is that the pervasive cultural mindset in the world is growth-for-the-sake-of-growth capitalism, which no amount of infrastructure can sustain because growth for the sake of itself cannot be sustained on finite resources, and of course there are the various flavors of different cultural mindsets that inhibit resource distribution (ex. capitalism vs communism, colonialism vs indigenous cultures)

Alphabetic language itself may or may not have had any hand in shifting the world at large to a cultural mindset that can't sustain infrastructure, but language does have some hand in it because language and culture are, arguably, inextricable from each other

re: the archeology bit of your response, we have likely fundamentally different views on how useful archeology is. Suffice to say that I think it's highly interpretive and we can't really get away from (even accidentally) imposing our own perspectives on cultures we study. Naturally, we relate things to ourselves

re: 'how would poor farmers be happy in an illiterate society if poor farmers are unhappy in a literate/partially literate society:' its a question of power dynamics. An illiterate farmer in a society where writing is extant has a lot less influence than an illiterate farmer in a society where writing isn't a factor at all. Thus, the farmers may have exactly the same physical conditions, but may have vastly different experiences of life

Illiterate farmers in illiterate societies might have also been under oppressive systems, but I'd argue a literate society has infinitely more potential to be more oppressive. Written language is a tool, and it can be devastating. Nazi Germany didn't get that way only because of speeches, their rhetoric was printed and distributed (writing & literacy provide ease of access for all forms of information, including disinformation), spreading their propaganda as far as it could go. Edit: Other technologies helped, too, of course, none of these issues are unilateral. A very frustrating thing in anthropology and the related fields

Again written/alphabetic language isn't bad. It just leads to fundamentally different cultural experiences than can be had in a society without it. Different, not necessarily better or worse.