How is starving to death a problem instead of the goal? I hadn't thought of reducing the human population by wiping out important crops with plant vectors, but I'm open to the idea. Of course I'm not in charge of setting policy, but I always like to think of clever ways of implementing it. The current White House science advisor once pushed for putting some kind of chemical surreptitiously onto the money or government checks to cause mass sterility in the US population, to keep our numbers down, but obviously our primary goal should be wiping out other
country's populations first, because if we wipe out ourselves at the start, who would be left to ensure that everybody else dies too, especially those troublesome Africans where mail service is horribly slow and inefficient?
Perhaps the best long-term solution to the problem is to let the 1 percent move to their space colonies, taking with them carefully screened and selected plant and animal species (with very few insects and no parasites), and then have them completely exterminate almost all life on Earth by blocking out the sun until a total freeze happens, then thawing and reseeding the planet with only the organisms we like.
If we fail to do that, any colony we establish or alien planet we terraform would forever be subject to the threat of a disease, parasite, plague, or destructive insect arriving from Earth, where there are four billion years of badness evolved to exploit weaknesses in our genes and immune systems. A veritable Pandora's box of evils lurks on this planet, and it makes little sense to exterminate the current human population while leaving almost all of those evils intact.
Or we could let SpaceX, Blue Origin, Xcor, and other companies just go about their business, develop space, and not kill anyone or anything. Hrm... Commit mass genocide using all the tools of science, or just let folks fly off to space and do whatever suits their fancy? How to choose, how to choose...