It seems to be so if one is using purely statistical models
based on current food production techniques.
But don't forget about science, engineering, technology and
ingenuity. Examples include vitamins. Synthesis of amino acids
from base constituents (which, to our body means - raw materials
to build proteins, even if we don't have traditional protein
sources available).
Plasma recyclers that take _anything_ and break to its chemical
components leaving behiind nothing. It exists today.
My point is, the argument only holds by projecting current
technology and capabilities into the future.
But the point becomes moot if we can recycle completely what we
use and make new food supplies with it.
The Earth is NEARLY a closed system (not quite but close
enough).
Is it *possible* to reach a point of excess population? Sure.
But we have a long way to go for that, if it happens at all.
Also, with increased population will come increases diseases
being spread. That, sad to say but true, _will_ cut down a large
part of the population anyway.
Of course I could be entirely wrong, and the statistical models
hold completely true. But, I don't tend to believe statistics
that extend into the future more than a few days or weeks.
Anything beyond that and there's too many variables.
