It's taught that the Green revolution was what broke Malthus, but so far we haven't solved the core problem(finite natural resources), only kicked the can down

It's taught that the Green revolution was what broke Malthus, but so far we haven't solved the core problem(finite natural resources), only kicked the can down the road(we can turn crude oil into extra food). I hate to be so grim, but your position is, "technology has allowed humans to dominate the planet and push up our carry capacity. Externalities are building up as a result of those technologies and they make our enviroment less hospitable. We have yet figured out how to not do that, despite the problem being significantly more difficult now that we are locked in to supporting more people. But we will do it, for sure. " Is the last part saying that because their are have nots we are fine? You completely ignore the "we don't know how to make basic stuff at the quantities needed in a sustainable way" bit. I don't think banking on the discovery of new technology and having enough coordination as a species to implement that tech in a timely enough fashion is so safe that doubting it should be controversial.