> My thesis is: it's better to have one random human die in this case.

So the resources that one random reasonably affluent person, who is educated, has access to technology, is dependant on resources which could allow possibly hundreds to survive, both human and animal, that person who thinks “it's better to have one random human die in this case.” should not necessarily kill themselves, but certainly not enjoy 'luxuries' of consumerism. So the thesis is contradicted by the person proposing it.

> True, but well, I also never signed a contract saying I consented to paying taxes.

You did in effect it's the social contract. And you are free to drop out anytime. You can then achieve a goal of being not responsible for resources you do not need to live.

The ethics then is, is it ethical to pose such thought experiments, where the consequences are purely hypothetical, and the person proposes a solution that they do not take.