> It discusses one specific problem: over-population

As I said, they make exactly zero effort to say anything of substance about that issue. Key word is "over". I refer back to my comment. They say something about "population" - but the vital "over-" part is not addressed at all. For good reason, that's a complex topic with mostly unknowns.

> Colorful animations help people understand a point, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.

If there is no substance and the topic is complex and big than that alone is wrong already.

> My point is:

> - The shortage of resource because of over-population is an old theory, but we've seen no evidence to it yet.

There does indeed exist evidence that unrestrained population growth DOES lead to resource depletion and at least in this case [0] led to the eventual extinction of a population confined to an island.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Matthew_Island#Mammals

Isn’t this prone to inductive fallacy? Just because we’ve never seen overpopulation as problem doesn’t mean it won’t become one. Ultimately, earth as planet is finite.

>- Population growth eventually slows down when the mortality rate decreases.

But that worked in a world where people were reliant on children to work / take care of elders. I don't think the comparison between 40's occident and nows developing countries is of any worth. Also you can throw a lot of stuff in there : not the same social norms (occident is really individual centered, asia or africa don't seem to have suffered the same shift yet), not the same culture (child policies, cults, education access for women...). I really don't think your sentence is an universal rule. It happened once in a rather homogenical situations. Could we say the same about now ?

>- The population growth rate is expected to begin slowing

Expectations are not enough. And nothing will be inforced to provoke this. Also we're still above 2 children per women, which is too much considering the HUGE energy/consumption/overall spending cutouts we have to make to keep our planet and oceans alive.

> The shortage of resource because of over-population is an old theory, but we've seen no evidence to it yet.

That doesn't deny that it's still happening though. This sounds like the kind of argument Exxon, Nestle, or a logging company would use to continue siphoning up resources while saying "Well, we're all still alive, so no harm done." That's very short-sighted and limited thinking. There are many other consequences of an increasing population that by proxy contribute to resource depletion, such as pollution and over-development for example.

In a non-human comparison, look at the damage that happens when an invasive species enters a new environment and over-populates. The native flora and fauna suffer and the resources they rely on begin to disappear. Then we end up with a Lorax-like scenario.

> The shortage of resource because of over-population is an old theory, but we've seen no evidence to it yet.

Malthus only has to be right once for you to see the shortage. E.g. you can always pull water out of the well, until you can't. If you can say that with a straight face and pretend it's an argument, then I can say "you can't predict that it will never be a problem as long as humanity exists" and be just as right.

The only argument here is for how we will deal with the shortage - violently or by gradually reducing the birth rates.

> Population growth eventually slows down when the mortality rate decreases.

Population numbers themselves are meaningless without estimates of resource consumption. Nor is necessarily having a high population at the level of "not starving" level of prosperity something that we should be striving towards.

> The population growth rate is expected to begin slowing

Yes, it's already slowing, but see above for why it's meaningless that it is.

> Colorful animations help people understand a point, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.

It also doesn't necessarily mean they tell the whole picture, the correct picture or contain any relevant information whatsoever.

One thing I wonder about is how much of a genetic component there is to the number of children people will have in a developed society.

If there is, after several generations, you can expect those genes to be much more prevalent in the society and for population growth to resume.

It doesn’t make any sense to me that overpopulation leading to resource exhaustion ha been debunked because the population has grown over 7 billion and it hasn’t happened yet. It brings to mind the image of a person falling off a skyscraper and plummeting to the ground thinking, “so far so good!”