Correction to my earlier comment: it was 0.1% of the world's then population, not 1%.
The size of the population in Ireland was enabled by subsistence farming of the potato. The powers that were, did not have a control on the number of children per family. The spurt in population was risky and had Malthus' projections been heeded, population based checks on resource limits working as a preventive measure would have limited population growth rather than the death rate doing so.
Plots of land were handed down by subdivision among the male children in a family[0]. The population increased, but the land available to them remained the same.
Crop loss was estimated at one third to one half [1].
So to refute your point, if there was a smaller population, the land occupied by the total population would arguably have remained the same, and one third to one half of a crop loss could have been sustained without starvation and famine.
I am still convinced that it was a real life Malthusian crisis, aided and abetted by systematic exploitation. I do not think it's a stretch to say exploitation has not been eradicated. It's a certainty that children are still brought in to the world without a guarantee that they can be provided for.
We can argue for resource redistribution to prevent crises arising, however Malthusian 'prophecy' is predictive, and the Irish Famine was predictable without resource redistribution. I would argue we have already had a Malthusian crisis. I would further argue it's hubris to say that another is impossible.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_famine#Tenants.2C_subdiv...
This paragraph only alludes to the process of subdivision, with only a small amount of research, you will see that it resulted in population exceeding the carrying capacity of the land they occupied in 1845.
"Following the famine, reforms were implemented making it illegal to further divide land holdings."
The size of the population in Ireland was enabled by subsistence farming of the potato. The powers that were, did not have a control on the number of children per family. The spurt in population was risky and had Malthus' projections been heeded, population based checks on resource limits working as a preventive measure would have limited population growth rather than the death rate doing so.
Plots of land were handed down by subdivision among the male children in a family[0]. The population increased, but the land available to them remained the same.
Crop loss was estimated at one third to one half [1].
So to refute your point, if there was a smaller population, the land occupied by the total population would arguably have remained the same, and one third to one half of a crop loss could have been sustained without starvation and famine.
I am still convinced that it was a real life Malthusian crisis, aided and abetted by systematic exploitation. I do not think it's a stretch to say exploitation has not been eradicated. It's a certainty that children are still brought in to the world without a guarantee that they can be provided for.
We can argue for resource redistribution to prevent crises arising, however Malthusian 'prophecy' is predictive, and the Irish Famine was predictable without resource redistribution. I would argue we have already had a Malthusian crisis. I would further argue it's hubris to say that another is impossible.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_famine#Tenants.2C_subdiv... This paragraph only alludes to the process of subdivision, with only a small amount of research, you will see that it resulted in population exceeding the carrying capacity of the land they occupied in 1845. "Following the famine, reforms were implemented making it illegal to further divide land holdings."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_famine#Blight_in_Ireland (look for "Crop loss in 1845")