Debunked by economists who are the joke of the Nobel laureates. Even the Peace prize is more respectable. 100 years in human history? Nothing. The Roman Empire took half a millennium to decay.
The Malthusian argument is a thermodynamic argument. If we grow without bound (either by number or per capita consumption) we will run out of resources like any other biological system.
The only thing that allows us to escape this is human's unique ability to transcend our biological nature - i.e. breed responsibly (Gd I hate that) and consume less.
Mainstream economics is enamored with boundless growth, therefore, we're on a crash course.
Right, because food today is more expensive than food yesterday, since we are growing so much outside our means, we are clearly consuming all the natural resources and devouring each other for that last piece of corn.
Human behavior is not thermodynamics. To the very least, the day were all the resources in the universe have been consumed by its living beings is so far away that it is absolutely irrelevant and inapplicable to our society.
Sorry, what's the point of the universe? We're bound to Earth by any rational understanding of physics and physiology.
"Right, because food today is more expensive than food yesterday" Love the sarcasm, not the shallow argument (I appreciate that food is, seemingly, cheaper than yesterday).
Human behavior is not thermodynamics. Agriculture is. Food is cheaper today because:
1) N2 fixation thanks to Dr. Haber
2) Large scale potash mining and shipping.
3) Unsustainable use of other necessary agricultural inputs
Point 1) is fairly stable in the medium term (i.e. my daughter's potential children's life span ~ next 100 years to 400 years) because energy is cheap and effectively getting cheaper. Population won't grow too fast as to run out of energy, if it did we're really f.ed, and global energy use has stabilized and might decline.
Point 2), however, is a nasty one. Run out of potash, then you run out of K and therefore food production above carrying capacity. You can turn to (say) oceans to mine K, but that's expensive.
I appreciate the econ argument that "you can't run out of resources because the price goes up until you don't want to use them" but that ultimately trash. You won't go hungry, because you might afford a doubling in price of your groceries. It's the Ethiopian kids whose lives balance everything out.
Point 3) Acquirers are running out so, for example, California's agricultural production is in peril.
See... thermo!
Are there alternatives that are more "sustainable"? Sure. But they all come with (an unknown to me) maximum carrying capacity.
As to human behavior not being modeled by thermo... that's irrelevant. People will shift preferences to eat lower quality, higher yield crops due to prices changes and all.
Of course those prices changes are (partly) due to... thermodynamics!
The Malthusian argument is a thermodynamic argument. If we grow without bound (either by number or per capita consumption) we will run out of resources like any other biological system.
The only thing that allows us to escape this is human's unique ability to transcend our biological nature - i.e. breed responsibly (Gd I hate that) and consume less.
Mainstream economics is enamored with boundless growth, therefore, we're on a crash course.