[at_a_remove]

I mean, that seems super-reasonable, but I tend to open these sorts of things with "Either you think that the Earth can support an infinite number of human beings on it or you believe there is a finite number, and most of it is quibbling over the number."

And that number is going to be a function of lifestyle, or quality of life, or what have you. We can support an awful lot of miserable people with stunted growth from malnutrition in sprawling hovels, much more than we can of healthy people in nice homes who aren't miserable with hunger all the time. That appears to be the biggest slider on the carrying capacity formula.

I happen to think that the carrying capacity on the planet is quite low, about a quarter of a billion people. Yes, I am sure some Star Trek tech would raise that. It isn't something you can plan for or count on.

It is currently fashionable to sneer at Malthus, I happen to think that the main failings were his not counting on us finding exciting new ways to burn the future in favor of the present. Yes, we found an awful lot of ways to increase food production, ha ha, here's mud in your eye, Malthus! Now we're starting to wake up to the costs of that.

[mensetmanusman]

Quarter billion people couldn’t support the existing supply chain of a John Deer tractor. Fewer people means less tech and lower quality of life.