That position is a reasonable one and I respect it, but I disagree. Necessity is the mother of invention, and technology is usually developed in response to need. Thus, "don't expand until the technology is there" is a bit of a catch-22: Population growth will drive demand and funding for new ways to solve the challenges that come with it.
Also, population 600 billion doesn't happen overnight - we're almost certainly in good shape for the next 50-100 years, I'd argue the decline in population in some Western countries is a much greater threat to prosperity, health, and happiness than any increase in population could be.
> Necessity is the mother of invention, and technology is usually developed in response to need.
This is some position I respect but disagree with. For one reason: it is pure observation bias.
Those who fail to invent at the face of Necessity take the hit, hunker down and die in anonymity. On the other hand, the ones who prevail have their names written in history as legendary inventors and innovators. Rinse a repeat over a couple thousand years and everybody knows that "Necessity is the mother of invention, and technology is usually developed in response to need".
Malthus is highly misunderstood as having stated that doom in unavoidable. What he actually said is that unconstrained population growth will eventually be forcibly constrained by hard physical and ecologic limits. I'd rather have rational planning or cultural taboos limit the max human population in any given region.
I don't disagree with invention and creativity and a role of a problem in motivating the two -- I can't, really, having ended up writing a couple of odes to it on HN in the past.
However, I prefer my necessities not to involve potential humanitarian catastrophes. The steam engine, the rapid advancement of powered flight technology, and Google were all created in response to a need, but none of these needs were of the "young people will starve and old people will be left desolate if we don't come up with something" variety.
We're not short on need for cheaper energy right now; I don't think we ever were. (More efficient agriculture is a slightly more complex subject due to political reasons.) Maybe someday we will be at a point where we can safely adopt a policy of encouraging lots of children, but right now it seems a little irresponsible.
Also, population 600 billion doesn't happen overnight - we're almost certainly in good shape for the next 50-100 years, I'd argue the decline in population in some Western countries is a much greater threat to prosperity, health, and happiness than any increase in population could be.