This is the problem with real-world Malthusian predictions. There are (obviously) hard limits on growth and carrying capacity for Earth, but extrapolating from some existing metric like food growth per human is an atrocious way to find them.
A convincing Malthusian argument needs to take one of two forms: either concede that it represents doom without engineering progress, or convincingly argue that it represents a physical boundary rather than an engineering one.
A convincing Malthusian argument needs to take one of two forms: either concede that it represents doom without engineering progress, or convincingly argue that it represents a physical boundary rather than an engineering one.