I'm no expert but as far as I know Malthus' projections have been incredibly off and food production has increased far more exponentially than he ever predicted through modern agrigultural technology to the point where it has outpaced population growth.

At what environmental cost and how sustainable are they?

Like I said no expert and I'm only really casually disputing a guy whose calculations were from 200 years ago. I certainly don't know what's sustainable given the current rate of technological growth vs. population growth.

Resources are limited. Technology can’t change that. Whatever his numbers were the Malthusian principals are indisputable. Currently we’re depleting renewable resources faster than they’re renewing. Fish. Trees. Arable land. Potable water. Rain forests. Aquifers. And the oil that our agricultural machinery will not run on without. And replacing fossil fuels that hold hundreds of millions years worth of solar energy with alternative energy sources is a Pollyanna fairytale. Our DNA demands we Easter Island ourselves. The premise of Malthusian thought is we’re populating ourselves into starvation and we are.

Unless we turn ourselves into robots we’re going to need to consume other living organisms (or at least organic matter) to survive.

Go vegan! And be mindful of your carbon footprint and unnecessary consumption of products. Thats all i got.

They also poision to your immune system..... MANY PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF THIS AND DONT WANNA HURT THEMSELVES!

I mean I don't disagree in principle but Malthus is still a major contributor to eugenics and my original pithy but fun point was that Bill Gates' comments could still be interpreted as kinder friendlier eugenics on the down low.

I wish we would apply some eugenics to stop the idiocracy.

Well of course you do but Malthusian Liberal eugenics is more about killing the poor for the sake of the meritocratic wealthy.