That's the Malthusian hypothesis, an assumption that has been repeatedly and consistently disproven since it has first been formulated more than 200 years ago.

That's the Malthusian hypothesis, an assumption that has been repeatedly and consistently disproven since it has first been formulated more than 200 years ago. Strangely enough, it's still surprisingly popular. Groups like the Club of Rome and reports such as "The Limits to Growth" often don't state so explicitly but when you assert that artificial limits should be imposed on economic growth you're basically making a decision about which human beings get to be born in the future. In my opinion that's a both patronising as well as deeply anti-humanistic notion that doesn't take into account that there have always been and - extrapolating from the past - likely will still be paradigm shifts in the future which will allow us to make both more efficient use of existing resources and to discover new types of resources or new avenues for extracting existing ones.