Sure we could double the human population, but it all depends on where we cluster and how much of a drop in standard of living people are willing to put up with.
Malthus was wrong 80% of the population ago, and he still is wrong today, for all that he continually finds new followers.
The reason we're struggling right now has nothing to do with the food-production capacity of the planet. It's all a combination of sudden supply shocks and governments being stupid and destructive.
per person. In absolute terms (the only terms that matter to the environment), it is by far the largest. Every time the population has grown so far, our impact on the environment has increased. But for some reason, you think this time will be different?
Well, not "in history", but certainly in the last 2000 years.
If population doubled the planet would be destroyed and/or we would survive in minuscule pods and eat bland mush to survive.
This is not the same as Malthus' thesis. We are producing enough food and we would probably still do. The issue is the cost in terms of environmental destruction and quality of life.
Have a look at the early industrial period or even the 1970s, and then have a look out the window again. There's a bit of a [citation needed] on that claim.
(just this week, for example, there was a study that showed that a major contributor to the increase in the severity of the Atlantic hurricane season in the last decade has been the great reduction in atmospheric pollution)