I'd agree with you if the argument were "ecological overshoot theory is flawed". But, the discussion as I understand it is... the solution to ecological overshoot is "degrowth". In that context it makes sense to revisit Malthus.
I didn't think it made sense to revisit Malthus there. Sorry, not my discussion anyway and I should not pitch in.
It really started with Clinton and his DLC organisation. Since Reagan buried the old FDR democrats, Clinton needed a new vision for the Democrats to succeed and that was fighting big money with bigger money. So he is really the candidate that started the strategy of catering to the Oligarchs instead of the white working class that the FDR democrats like Carter catered to. NAFTA was the final nail on the coffin for the union class. Heck Perot even foretold what was going to happen but I guess the voters didn't give a fuck and voted for Clinton anyway. I guess playing the saxophone on The Arsenio Hall Show was more important to the voters.
I'm not "promoting" anything, just pointing out that it's been over 200 years and a Malthusian catastrophe has yet to occur. In addition, I see your concerns re: EO as being quite similar. I suspect you're a bit wet behind the ears and never heard of Malthus until I brought him up. Now you're just wriggling to try and get the last word or cling to your collapsing model of the world. But, by all means, if you don't see a similarity between Malthus and your concerns regarding EO... do the work required to explain the differences and help humanity avert the foreboding catastrophe. It's your world... we're just living in it.
We were on the verge, actually, until Haber Bosch. Then world population tripled. Think we can keep doing that indefinitely? Malthus' shortcoming was not understanding the other half of the thermodynamic equation: waste (he was not alone, not by a long shot, many people still think it all just "goes away"). We are rapidly overfilling our pollution sinks (a parameter that includes all the undesirable outcomes of economic production, including climate change).
There's no other option besides enslaving or exterminating people. I don't think that will go over well. The tragedy of the commons will force human ingenuity to make the best of a bad situation. I'd suggest you start thinking about social "science" as well as natural science. Good luck.
That is horrifying, but not a place to start evaluating the evidence of carrying capacity, overshoot, or exceedance of pollution sinks and natural processes. We mustn't work backward from our desires, cherry-picking data to support.
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not suggesting it's a place to start nor that we work backward... I'm pointing out the problem. Get to work! I'm sure you can find ways to economize. Edit: I'd really appreciate you didn't take my words out of context too. It comes off like you're playing bullshit games and it's very unsavory. To be clear, I wrote: (emphasis added) You think I just fell out of a coconut tree? Grow up; you're not worth my time anymore.