Of course - and even Larry Summers agreed with this when he was chief economist at the World Bank. But the basic anti-Malthusian insight is that distress produces population, not that population produces distress.
Doug
^^^^ CB: Population increase can't take place without more pregnancy labor for women, which is stressful. With childcare still largely done by women, it increase that labor for women as well.
The rich get richer and the poor get children. Is that the basic "anti-Malthusian insight ?" Jenny Brown stated a materialist basis for this old saying. I can't remember it right now.
I'd say the basic anti-Malthusian insight is that population increase need not lead to mass starvation if there is a distribution system other than capitalism; that Malthus' error was in presuming the mode of distribution must remain capitalist.
Despite all this, isn't some relief for women from childbirth and childcare work sufficient reason to favor reduction of the rate of future population increase ( NOT getting rid of any existing people !) ? This doesn't _contradict_ reducing gas emissions. It wouldn't solve that problem, but it would contribute to solving that problem, a little anyway, as a bonus.