Malthus is empirically rejected and ignores the possibility of human adaptation Forbes 111 gives 4 warrants

Youd think after 200 years, folks would eventually say, That Malthus guy? Kind of wrong. Yet, with the (projected) birth today of the worlds 7 billionth

theres no shortage of media hand-wringing about the dim prospects of our world from here. Thomas Malthus is famous (or infamous, depending on your view) for his belief that human population growth would outpace food productionand fastwhich would lead to societal ruin. He was downright dismissive of the idea of unlimited progress in food production.Can there be unlimited progress in food production? Not sure. But [First] Malthus would never imagine that, with 6 billion more people than in his day, we have a holiday dedicated to handing total strangers handfuls of free food. Utterly nonnutritional food at that!You cant really blame Malthus for getting this so wrong. [Second] Long-term forecasts are right devilish. Example, the London Times columnist who predicted in 1894 that by 1950, London would be buried under 9 feet of manure likely died before he could have any egg on his face. (Though, no doubt, he had enough
occupant, time to surmise that the horse-dropping build-up was going awfully slowly.) There was no way for him to know in a few short years, the combustion engine would make horse-drawn transport a cute relic for honeymooners. And thats how these long-term forecasts go. point at which oil production hits an apex and starts falling) since the concept of peak oil was first popularized by Marion Hubbert in 1956, the amount of oil we produce has increased vastly. So too has the amount of known reserves in the ground. There was just no way for him to predict wed be drilling in thousands of feet of wateror fracking! (Heck, in 1956, frack was still what polite Dads said after their thumbs got in the way of their hammers.) Or that wed even have the technology to find the oil (or gas) to deep-water drill (or frack). The popular 1968 book

The peak oil date certain (the has come and gone multiple times over the past decades. Yet,

the Population Bomb posited that in the 1970s , hundreds of millions would starve to death. The theory was that if food production is growing at X rate and the population growing at much faster Y rate, that could pose quite a problem. But then, along came Norman Borlaug, who invented high-yielding, disease-resistant dwarf wheat. (Thank goodness Normans mom wasnt a Malthusian.) Now, dwarf wheat may make those who shun frankenfoods mad, but it also meant the
emerging worlds burgeoning populations didnt all starve. (Not to mention that sticky question, if you buy whole-hog into Malthuss [long-disproven] concept, of how exactly you get the population to that lower, appropriate level. Lets move on.) I dont care what its oneconomies, capital markets, wheat yields, hemline

[Third] long-term forecasts are fraught with peril. And ones that underestimate humanitys ingenuity and ability to problem-solve are particularly faulty. Yes, pockets of the world face famineusually in regions with corrupt, despotic governments. But overall, the world hasnt outgrown its ability to feed itself. Someone invented the steel plow, the tractor, the threshing machine, better fertilizers. Handily, someone also discovered penicillin, the pasteurization process, the Polio vaccine and DDT so we have a better shot at getting past age 5. (And the iPhone too, so we can live, not starve and be entertained all the while.) Malthus didnt think about the iPhone anymore than he thought about dwarf wheat or the MMR vaccine. That doesnt make him a bad person, just rather unimaginative. [Fourth] And while global population has grown, life expectancies keep increasing, quality of life keeps improving,
trends and per capita GDP keeps expanding. So bring on number 8 billion! (Malthus will still be wrong then.)

Prefer this analysis a) This is more recent, which is key since there have been many recent innovations in food production. Science is always changing so the most recent evidence is the most accurate. b) This outweighs on probability because it empirically rejects Malthus claim since quality of life has improved with population growth c) This is logically prior because it discredits claims of long-term forecasts by citing that they have been wrong in the past

Lara Hoffmans [Economist, Development Leader of Wileys Fisher Investment On series, with coverage of consumer staples, Vice President of Fisher Investments, Author of 5 Bestsellers including Markets Never Forget and The Ten Roads to Riches] 7 Billion Reasons Malthus Was Wrong Forbes (October 31, 2011) http://www.forbes.com/sites/larahoffmans/2011/10/31/7-billion-reasons-malthus-was-wrong/