-
the "use of machines" and related industrial "progress" is what has allowed the population to expand in the way that it has. i'm not sure that the two things can be decoupled.
If anything, we've seen a really strong decoupling in the wealthiest nations to the point where fertility rates have declined pretty rapidly. Maybe Malthus had a point in earlier industrial stages before the 20th century, but even then it was divisive to say the least. After rapid urbanisation and birth control, it seems like most people just don't really want to have more than two kids, which is what we'd need to exceed replacement rate. It doesn't really look like that's anything to do with resources aside from, maybe, land, which tends to have the effect of declining rather than increasing fertility rates.
That's all to say that, today, thankfully, we get to side step all of the nasty stuff that Malthusianism and obsession with population control started:
[Malthus'] scenario influenced policy makers to embrace social Darwinism and eugenics, resulting in draconian measures to restrict particular populations' family size, including forced sterilizations.
The belief that “those in power knew best what was good for the vulnerable and weak” led directly to legal actions based on questionable Malthusian science. For example, the English Poor Law implemented by Queen Elizabeth I in 1601 to provide food to the poor was severely curtailed by the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, based on Malthusian reasoning that helping the poor only encourages them to have more children and thereby exacerbate poverty. The British government had a similar Malthusian attitude during the Irish potato famine of the 1840s, Ridley notes, reasoning that famine, in the words of Assistant Secretary to the Treasury Charles Trevelyan, was an “effective mechanism for reducing surplus population.”
(From: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-malthus-is-still-wrong/)
I mean, this is still the same argument about benefits that many are having today, but we're still facing declining fertility rates:
based on Malthusian reasoning that helping the poor only encourages them to have more children and thereby exacerbate poverty
slippers-
If anything, we've seen a really strong decoupling in the wealthiest nations to the point where fertility rates have declined pretty rapidly
Yes the current forecast is 8 in 10 people will be from Asia or Africa by 2100, with Africa trippling it's population between now and then. Asia will be declining by 2100 but continued growth from now until 2080.
We are ill prepared for the coming demographic shifts and thier seems little appetite for discussion or planning for it. Europe has seen tiny changes so far compared to what's coming and already sees it's politics not fit for purpose and populations resistant and unprepared.
greentricky
the problem may not be population numbers per se, but the "use of machines" and related industrial "progress" is what has allowed the population to expand in the way that it has. i'm not sure that the two things can be decoupled.
yes, the privileged few consume the most and do the most damage by a massive margin, albeit that "few" is now circa 1bn people.