Although I sympathize with the author, I believe most academics are aware of/experienced all these issues after their first year of PhD. Becoming a professor these days is hyper competitive, you don't accidentally become a prof, or become one by default. So it's a pity that this person would quit over issues that they were aware of from early on.
Regarding papers that shouldn't be papers because it's a waste of resources, I think it's unkind/elitist for someone who rose to a prof position via these resources to then propagate such a sentiment. Only experts and geniuses should attempt to publish? Only people from certain institutions? Why should an author self-censor their own work because one person who chose to be a PC member, to pad their CV (which OP also criticises), doesn't think it's worthy?
In general if people are making poor contributions, their careers in academia will be short-lived, and their individual draining of resources will be minimal. If they get published then it's likely on merit.
Regarding papers that shouldn't be papers because it's a waste of resources, I think it's unkind/elitist for someone who rose to a prof position via these resources to then propagate such a sentiment. Only experts and geniuses should attempt to publish? Only people from certain institutions? Why should an author self-censor their own work because one person who chose to be a PC member, to pad their CV (which OP also criticises), doesn't think it's worthy?
In general if people are making poor contributions, their careers in academia will be short-lived, and their individual draining of resources will be minimal. If they get published then it's likely on merit.