Exactly. Hans Rosling and, well, all the data, make it look particularly dire for the neo-malthusians: http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-gr

Exactly. Hans Rosling and, well, all the data, make it look particularly dire for the neo-malthusians: http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth/ http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth... We don't have to say disproven* I guess, but maybe overshadowed? ie, I want a theory that explains not only population collapse, but also natural decreases in population growth (or sharp decreases not motivated by war or famine) that we're currently witnessing throughout the developed world. Malthus simply can't explain it and Rosling can. I'm going with the theory with more explanatory power, because that's how empiricism generally works. * Unless you're talking about the predictions Ehrlich made about things that didn't ultimately happen. Yeah, maybe "disproven" works.