I guess my question boils down to, how the output (population) can outpace the input (food)? — TheMadFool

It can't. Food is a limiting reagent of population. There is probably more nuance to Malthus argument.

Malthus observed that an increase in a nation's food production improved the well-being of the population, but the improvement was temporary because it led to population growth, which in turn restored the original per capita production level. In other words, humans had a propensity to utilize abundance for population growth rather than for maintaining a high standard of living, a view that has become known as the "Malthusian trap" or the "Malthusian spectre". Populations had a tendency to grow until the lower class suffered hardship, want and greater susceptibility to famine and disease, a view that is sometimes referred to as a Malthusian catastrophe. — Wikipedia: Thomas Malthus

The difference between humans today and animals that exploit an existing food source (which might cause a boom and bust population cycle) is that we have very sophisticated ways of growing the food supply. We also can decide to not have children and save more cake for ourselves. As to whether these sophisticated ways can weather the future is still a question.

There is probably more nuance to Malthus argument. — Nils Loc

What would that look like? Nuances as in...?

Let's do some back of the envelope calculations.

1. 100% of the mass of food gets converted to mass of the person consuming it.

2. The minimum mass of a person is 1 kg.

3. The maximum mass of a person is 2 kg. Beyond 2 kg, a person "reproduces" another person

4. 1 person consumes 1 kg

Suppose now,

4. Food production increases in arithmetic progression (in kg): 2, 4, 6, 8,... where 2 is food quantity for year 0, 4 is food quantity for year 1, so and so forth.

How will the population increase assuming there was only 1 person when there was 2 kg of food?

Food 2 kg: 1 person (2 kg) = 1 person

Food 4 kg: 1 person (2 kg) + 1 person (1 kg) = 2 persons

Food 6 kg: 2 persons (2 kg each) + 1 person (1 kg) = 3 persons

Food 8 kg: 3 persons (2 kg each) + 2 persons (1 kg each) = 5 persons

Food 10 kg: 5 persons (2 kg each) + 3 persons (1 kg each) = 8 persons

Food 12 kg: 8 persons (2 kg each) + 5 persons (1 kg each) = 13 persons

The number of people increases with the following pattern: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13... This pattern has a name: Fibonacci Sequence

The ratio between any two terms of the Fibonacci sequence approaches the Golden Ratio = 1.618...

Ergo, the population in the scenario above can be written as: A * (1.618...)^y where A = the initial population or population in year 0 and y is the yth year. In other words, population grows exponentially (geometrica progression) when food grows linearly (arithmetic progression).

What would that look like? Nuances as in...? — TheMadFool

:razz: Well, you've presented an ideal mathematical scenario (neat nuance) which may have helped form Malthus' original argument. But is it the case that food production is always arithmetic or that population growth is always exponential (can one model the numbers otherwise)? Did Malthus look at empirical data also and does the same relationship pan out that way?

Would we call the Irish Potato Famine an example of a Malthusian trap?

I guess my question boils down to, how the output (population) can outpace the input (food)? — TheMadFool

I think an answer to this is still pretty basic, as any case of famine would show. The demand for food overtakes the supply (which cannot catch up) and a threshold is reached were folks (animals) begin to die off.

Irish Potato Famine — Nils Loc

Last I checked, it had something to do with a blight. The Malthusian specter seems to, well, take such contingencies, in its stride so to speak i.e. the predictions of population size contimue to match, even if only as approximations, actual global/local census records. May be not, it's hard to talk about these things without studying it seriously and thoroughly. As such all my posts are more speculative than anything substantive. Nevertheless, my little thought experiment, did give me a feel of what could be going on. I was quite intrigued to find the Fibonnaci sequence embedded in population dynamics even though I had that information at the back of my head - something to do with rabbits.

Anyway, thanks for engaging with me. It was more fun than I thought it would be. If you think of anything interesting, lemme know, alright!

G'day.