Great point cgod. It is surprising to me that Malthusian ideas are still in vogue (I even encounter them among graduate students in my department)! I think it has to do with the fact that humans seem to default to a dystopian narrative of the future. This is the common line of reasoning:

If x, y, and z factor remain the same (e.g., agricultural output, standard of living, etc.), and all of our current problems remain the same (e.g., climate change, increasing population size), then catastrophe will ensue.

Of course under this line of reasoning catastrophe will always be on the horizon (hence persistent Malthusians).

And b_b I couldn't agree more. As I stated in the article, Malthus was not a bad scientist. He simply could not have predicted what the future of the human population would be, there was not enough data and something like the global emergence of our species has never happened before!

Also, I have developed the opinion that we do not actually have a carrying capacity (so ecologists can stop looking for one). I think that our carrying capacity is flexible and dependent on our technological capabilities. What do you guys think about that?