That is a journalist for you (I hope Chris Mackowski does not have a hard science degree). But the idea that economies do not have to take into account the larger system in which they are embedded is a little bit silly.
I agree with the basic assumptions of the article. I'm just being nit-picky about the physics. Anyway Malthus already wrote about this in the 18th century. One wonders why economists, sociologists, ecologists, etc, have to 'rediscover' his work (and Ricardo's) every so often.
Malthus's only mistake (I think) is his modeling agricultural advancement as linear.
Linear may be incorrect, but the thrust of his argument was that the natural rate of population growth will outstrip the food supply. In that sense, as long as its a lower growth rate, then the argument holds (qualitatively), even if the particulars of his model were wrong, strictly speaking.
exactly right in spirit but in his model the lines crossed to soon giving a very early date for the collapse. early like was already supposed to happen.