Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" from the 70s has given this sort of thing a bad name.

The problem is that there is absolutely zero doubt that the fundamentals are correct: there are limits to the population the earth can support and our population is still growing at a crazy rate (even if the growth is decelerating a bit).

The dilemma is that we don't know what the limits are. Every previous attempt to calculate or predict them has failed in significant ways.

So while it seems right to raise the alarm, it also seems hard to take any actual prediction seriously. I think we're likely better off with approaches that don't stress the (potential) crash. Emphasize that we have plenty of people already for us all to lead a wonderful life, and maybe we could just get to steady state because that will bring us all lots of benefits, whether the crash is 25 or 25,000 years away.

I think the earth can probably continue to support a few more billion humans, although obviously I'm no expert.

I also have a possibly unwarranted faith in humanity's ability to develop new technologies which enable large numbers of humans to live in the planet.

From what I understand, the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture came.about when humans hunted large game to extinction. Humans might be a bit more adaptable than rats

Quite problematic for a lot of investments, especially real estate. I would kindly ask everyone to resume mating, move to capitals and continue the pressure on the housing market.

Is this just Malthus? While it makes sense, the people predicting this have been wrong for 200 years now. Sure this might be the time they're finally right but it has a bad track record.