This is an interesting question which you pose very clearly. Because we don’t know the future and what opportunities technology may bring, it is prudent to hedg

This is an interesting question which you pose very clearly. Because we don’t know the future and what opportunities technology may bring, it is prudent to hedge the risk with an insurance policy. Right now we aren’t doing that and instead are doing the equivalent of driving fast without either a seat belt or insurance cover. I’m not quite sure how we would hedge against 70% acquifer depletion, climate change or soil degradation, but a more honest conversation about the need for a hedge would be a start. And looping back to your question, how to tell the difference between the Malthusian and the correct...and realizing you are essentially asking how to work out who is right and who is wrong about an unknowable future...maybe we look to how honest they are about the inherent uncertainty in any predictions made about the future, and secondly about the need to take risk mitigation steps to avoid worst outcome scenarios.